Defunding Planned Parenthood won't end abortion
By making this decision, the courts are potentially shutting Planned Parenthood out of millions of dollars that would go to necessary health care options like birth control, cancer screenings and testing for sexually transmitted infections.
It's a ruling that, like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in her dissent, is going to harm people who rely on Planned Parenthood for their care.
The plan was always to end abortion in every state
It's just another instance of conservatives ignoring the realities of women's health care in favor of their beliefs, and a reminder that abortion continues to be a Republican target. It's also a reminder that we'll be living in this dystopian health care nightmare for a very, very long time.
While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around. They were never going to be satisfied with simply returning abortion rights back to the states, the plan was always to eradicate the health care procedure nationwide.
Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
In May, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the Food and Drug Administration to review mifepristone, an abortion medication, because of a study from a conservative think tank that relies on flawed data.
The majority of abortions in 2023 were medication abortions. If mifepristone were suddenly taken off the market, it would have huge ramifications for patients across the country.
Planned Parenthood was also already struggling after President Donald Trump froze federal funding to more than 100 clinics earlier this year. It has led clinics across the country to shut down. His One Big Beautiful Bill Act also would block Medicaid patients from seeking care at Planned Parenthood, which could lead to more closures.
Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store.
None of this is happening in a vacuum. All of these Republican attacks amount to a nationwide assault on abortion rights, no matter where one is located in the country.
Millions of people could soon lose access to the care they need because of the Republican agenda.
Abortion bans aren't working. Defunding Planned Parenthood won't change that.
Despite these targeted attacks on abortion, the procedure hasn't become less popular in the years following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. In 2024, there was actually an increase in abortions, with a quarter of those procedures occurring via telehealth for medication.
Public opinion on abortion has remained steady, with Pew Research Center reporting that 63% of Americans supported abortion in all or most cases in 2024.
Opinion: Democrats don't need to move to the center. Mamdani proves progressives can win.
Clearly, Republican leaders are only listening to a small subset of their constituency when they decide to go after Planned Parenthood. They do not listen to the millions of people who have benefited from the wide range of services that the organization provides. Instead, they would rather spread falsehoods about abortion and how it is funded. They will not be happy until abortions are nearly impossible to obtain, even when someone's life is at risk.
The Supreme Court's latest cruel decision shows that we are still living with the long-term repercussions of having Trump nominate three justices to the bench. And this is just the beginning.
It's clear nothing is going to stop Republicans from attacking Planned Parenthood until it's unable to function because of a lack of government funding. It's shameful that they continue to put a political agenda ahead of the health care needs of women. It's also not changing anytime soon.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeno on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump-Iran latest: Top cleric issues fatwa against US president and Netanyahu for being ‘enemies of god'
Iran 's top cleric has issued a fatwa against US president Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Netanyahu for being 'enemies of God', according to Iranian state media. Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi said the US president and Mr Netanyahu were guilty of 'mohareb', waging war against God, following attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. Those identified as 'mohareb' can face execution, crucifixion, amputation or exile, according to Iranian Sharia law. The fatwa said: 'Any person or regime that threatens or assaults the leadership and religious authority of the Islamic Ummah is considered a mohareb.' Iranian clerics have issued similar fatwas in the past, the most famous of which targeted author Salman Rushdie following publication of his novel, The Satanic Verses. Mr Rushdie lost his right eye in 2022 after he was stabbed several times in New York by a man citing the fatwa. On 13 June, Israel launched aerial attacks on Iran after claiming it was just days away from developing a nuclear bomb. The US followed days later, striking three nuclear facilities with 14 30,000-pound 'bunker-busting' bombs. Top Iran cleric issues fatwa against Trump and Netanyahu Iran's top cleric has issued a fatwa against US president Donald Trump and Israeli prime minister Netanyahu for being 'enemies of God', according to Iranian state media. Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi said the US president and Mr Netanyahu were guilty of 'mohareb', waging war against God, following attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. Those identified as 'mohareb' can face execution, crucifixion, limb amputation, or exile, according to Iranian Sharia law. Alexander Butler30 June 2025 09:29
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
We've been living under Hitler's spell – time to wake up
The age of Hitler was not the Thirties and Forties: it has been our own lifetimes. It began in the Forties, was in full swing by the Sixties and is only now, it seems, coming to an end. In the post-war era, Adolf Hitler has been our most potent, unifying figure. He remains our touchstone and our backstop. In a world where we seem increasingly unable to agree on anything, we can still almost entirely agree on condemning him. Anyone who defends Hitler thereby reveals themselves to be a monster. Whenever we want to condemn someone, we almost instinctively compare them to him. His indisputable evil makes him a unique fixed reference-point in our moral landscape. For example, as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, memes of Vladimir Putin as Hitler began to appear – even as Putin himself stridently (and absurdly) claimed that his war aim was to 'denazify' Ukraine. Hillary Clinton is one of many people to have called Donald Trump a new Hitler, and compared Trump's 2024 rally at Madison Square Garden, in New York, to the notorious pro-Nazi rally that took place there in 1939. Boris Johnson compared the EU to Hitler; conversely, during the height of Brexit rancour, he himself was regularly depicted with a toothbrush moustache. Even now, it seems, we still define our values with reference to the Nazis. We cannot shake our fascination. I first remember hearing Hitler's name in the late Seventies. I think I was about six years old. I asked my mother something like: who is the worst person ever? Well, who else could she possibly have chosen? Who else would you choose? My next flash of memory – though it might, in reality, have been months later – is of asking her: has anyone ever written a book about Hitler? I remember feeling at the time that my second question was slightly shameful. My instinct was that it was wrong to write a book about a bad man; it was probably wrong even to want to know more about him. But my mother surprised me by pointing to our bookshelves, and a fat hardback with that dreaded name on the spine in barefaced capitals: my father's copy of Alan Bullock's 1952 biography Hitler: A Study in Tyranny. 'Oh, yes,' she said, 'there are lots.' There are indeed, and more every year: not just because Hitler was an enormously consequential figure, but because I'm not the only person to have found his evil fascinating. We cannot stop retelling and reinventing his story, and the endlessly rich story of the war against him. A lifetime later, the films, the books, the ever more tenuous documentaries keep coming; to judge by the schedule of the History Channel, and the lists of many publishers, the Second World War is almost the only event in human history. And historians are forced to share Hitler with storytellers and myth-makers – anyone who wants to stiffen whatever they're drinking with a shot of cheap moral spirits. Sauron, the Daleks, Darth Vader, Lord Voldemort: they're all, unmistakably and unashamedly, Nazi tribute acts. The age of Hitler is the age in which the Western victors of the Second World War have set the terms of global conversation. Many of us have lived the majority of our lives in an era of broad and stable consensus about our most basic shared values. Human lives are fundamentally of equal worth; all human beings have fundamental and inalienable rights; our lives, bodies and consciences belong to us and to no-one else. These truths seem self-evident to the point of banality. Nonetheless, most people in most periods of human history have not believed any such things. And consider what happens when anyone refuses to conform to those supposedly universal anti-Nazi values. For example, in Zimbabwe in the late Nineties, Chenjerai Hunzvi, a particularly brutal enforcer acting on behalf of Robert Mugabe, adopted and gloried in the nickname 'Hitler'. It signalled his ruthlessness to the regime's opponents, to terrify them and to defy any criticism they might level at him. On that level, it worked. For the rest of the world, though, it only cemented the view that Zimbabwe's rulers had become mere predators, and contributed to Mugabe's ostracism on the international stage. Deliberately aligning yourself with Hitler is rare. More commonly, people or movements discredit themselves with unintended or ill-concealed echoes of Nazism. The most obvious examples of this are found in the persistent tendency of many anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist movements around the world to stray, or lapse, into open anti-Semitism. For most of my lifetime, people in Western societies who broke that taboo have automatically ostracised themselves. It's a mark of the end of the age of Hitler that that taboo is clearly decaying. Belligerence, too, can activate our anti-Nazi antibodies. Vladimir Putin may have been surprised that his invasion of Ukraine in 2022 met with such a startlingly different Western response from the one received by his war in Chechnya, or his annexation of Crimea. But those earlier acts hadn't involved a full-scale, unconcealed armed invasion of a neighbouring sovereign state. When Putin tried such an act, it triggered Europe's collective memories of 1938-40. I'm not the first person to notice that the modern world is preoccupied by Nazism, nor that the Nazis have an outsized role in our ethics. But the people who make this point often come from one end of the political spectrum. Take the French writer Renaud Camus, notorious as the originator of the far-Right conspiracy theory the 'Great Replacement': he has lamented what he calls 'the second career of Adolf Hitler', meaning the Führer's career as a moral symbol. Camus and other activists resent how the spectre of Nazism is invoked when they propose mass expulsion of immigrants, purges of the judiciary or restrictions on Muslims' religious freedoms. It's time, these people believe, that we stop being frightened of bogeymen with swastikas. This is not my view. I don't want us to unlearn the lessons of Nazism, lessons that were learned at such a terrible cost. To recognise Hitler as representing a truly exceptional evil is the beginning of wisdom. But this recognition isn't enough. Simply knowing that Hitler was a monster is not an adequate guide to the world we live in. In Britain our instinct has long been to compare every crisis to the Second World War: we even, ludicrously, tried it with Covid-19. There are some evils which the age of Hitler has simply not prepared us to face, and some misleading lessons it has taught us. Shouting 'Nazi!' at each other is a hopeless way to deal with our economic, environmental and demographic crises. And a knee-jerk rejection of 'appeasement', on its own, is a poor guide to international relations in a nuclear age. Our values are more fragile than we think. Our sense of what's right and wrong, our deep convictions about justice and human rights, feel like timeless, self-evident truths, and we can't help looking down on ancestors who didn't have the wit to see them. Nor can we help believing that, now we've grasped those truths, we'll never let go of them. Surely people will always believe in democracy and human rights; surely the arc of the moral universe does bend towards justice? But this is demonstrably, factually incorrect. Our values, my values, your values, are the outcome of a particular historical process, a process in which the Second World War was decisive. And now those values are again on the move. On the Right, across Europe and beyond, the taboo against parties that have a whiff of fascism has virtually gone. Trump's acolytes play with 'Hitler salutes' and the like because they enjoy making their opponents splutter with outrage. Meanwhile, on the Left, the new identity politics of race and gender have challenged ideas that used to be truisms, such as simple egalitarianism, the aspiration to be colour-blind or the conviction that anti-Semitism is an exceptional evil to be avoided at all costs. Indeed both sides, to no-one's surprise, have started spitting venom about Jews again. We can strive to keep the post-1945 consensus going, but the war is falling off the edge of living memory. Like it or not, the age of Hitler, the age when appalled fascination with the Nazis dominated our moral imagination, is coming to an end. The question is: what will come next? The Age of Hitler and How We Will Survive It by Alec Ryrie (Reaktion, £15.95) will be published on July 1. Alec Ryrie will be speaking at Oxford Literary Festival, in partnership with The Telegraph, on July 30. Tickets:
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Trump live updates: Congress to vote on ‘Big, Beautiful Bill' in defining moment for president's second term
President Donald Trump 's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' will be subjected to an unlimited series of amendment votes in the Senate on Monday. The 940-page tax and spending bill, which maps out much of the president's domestic legislative agenda, narrowly passed the House of Representatives last month and scraped through the Senate on Saturday night 51-49 after Majority Leader John Thune and Vice President JD Vance managed to persuade most Republican dissenters to fall in line. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has warned that passage of the bill will add an estimated $3.3trn to the United States's $36.2trn national debt over the next decade, which Democrats hope will give conservative fiscal hawks cause for concern. Trump himself has urged his party to push through the bill regardless and ignore objections raised by the Senate parliamentarian about several of its provisions as its July 4 deadline looms. Senators will start voting on the amendments, on what could prove to be a very long day, from 9am ET (2pm GMT) on Monday. Senate to vote on 'Big, Beautiful Bill' amendments on crucial day for Donald Trump's presidency President Donald Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' will be subjected to an unlimited series of amendment votes in the Senate on Monday in what promises to be a defining moment for his second term in the White House. The 940-page tax and spending bill, which maps out much of the president's domestic legislative agenda, narrowly passed the House of Representatives earlier this month and scraped through the Senate on Saturday night 51-49 after Majority Leader John Thune and Vice President JD Vance managed to persuade most Republican dissenters to fall in line. Senators will start voting on amendments to the contentious megabill from 9am ET (2pm GMT) on Monday, a process that could well run long. Joe Sommerlad30 June 2025 09:10 Good morning Hello and welcome to The Independent 's live coverage of Capitol Hill as the United States Senate reconvenes to vote on an unlimited series of amendments to Donald Trump's signature 'Big, Beautiful Bill' on what promises to be a very long day indeed. Joe Sommerlad30 June 2025 08:50
