Planned Parenthood isn't the only loser in Supreme Court case. Women lose, too.
While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around.
Almost three years to the day since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the justices have once again made a decision that will limit access to reproductive care. This time, they're explicitly coming after Planned Parenthood.
On Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision that could allow states to keep Medicaid dollars from the organization. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices determined that individuals could not sue to choose their health care provider after a patient sued South Carolina to receive reproductive care from Planned Parenthood.
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.
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 Pequeño 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
CNN
18 minutes ago
- CNN
Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill
President Donald Trump is using false claims to promote his massive domestic policy bill. In a White House speech on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed Medicaid is 'left the same' by the bill. In fact, both the version of the legislation that was narrowly passed by the House in May and the latest version now being contemplated by the Senate contain major Medicaid policy changes and funding cuts that are expected to result in millions of people losing insurance coverage. Trump also falsely claimed that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security benefits. The legislation would not actually fulfill Trump's campaign promise to completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, though it would temporarily give seniors a substantially bigger tax deduction. And Trump falsely claimed that 'there'll be a 68% tax increase' if Congress doesn't approve the bill; there is no credible estimate of anything close to a 68% hike. One caveat: since Congress has not yet sent a final bill to Trump's desk, it's possible that legislators will make major changes before the Senate votes. But Trump's claims are inaccurate with regard to the House-approved version and the version senators are considering. Asked for comment on the president's false claims, the White House provided an on-record response that touted the benefits of the bill but did not defend Trump's specific assertions. 'The One, Big, Beautiful Bill is chock-full of the policies that the American people elected President Trump – and Congressional Republicans – to implement,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a Friday email. Here is a fact check. Trump claimed in his Thursday address that people are 'not going to feel any' of the spending cuts included in the bill. He then said, 'Your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Medicaid is false. The version of the bill that was passed by the House last month would make multiple significant changes to Medicaid and would reduce federal funding for the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. The legislation's Medicaid provisions are expected to result in 7.8 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to more than 71 million low-income Americans, including children, people with disabilities, senior citizens, parents and other adults. The House bill would require certain able-bodied adults without dependent children to work, volunteer or participate in other activities for at least 80 hours a month to retain their coverage. It would also enact several provisions that would make it more difficult to sign up for or reenroll in Medicaid. And it would reduce federal support to certain states that provide state-funded coverage to undocumented immigrants. Regardless of the merits of these policies, they are major changes that would not leave Medicaid 'the same.' All told, the changes would reduce federal support for the program by roughly $800 billion over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office projects; the Senate version of the bill has yet to be finalized but contains many similar provisions. Asked for comment on Trump's claim that Medicaid would be 'left the same' by the bill, a White House official provided background material that did not try to corroborate the claim. Rather, the White House defended the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid – saying, for example, that the majority of people the Congressional Budget Office estimated would lose Medicaid under the bill 'are able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and work less than 20 hours per week.' Trump campaigned in 2024 on a promise of no more taxes on Social Security benefits. On Thursday, he said the bill is 'so good' because it includes 'hundreds of things' that will benefit Americans – including 'no tax' on Social Security. He then said in a social media post on Friday that the legislation left Republicans 'on the precipice' of delivering achievements including 'NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR OUR SENIORS.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Social Security is false. The bill would temporarily beef up seniors' standard tax deduction, but it would not completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. The House-approved version would give people age 65 and older a $4,000 increase to their standard deduction from 2025 through 2028, whether or not they are receiving Social Security payments yet. The Senate version would provide a $6,000 boost to seniors. In both versions, the benefit would start to phase out for individuals with incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with incomes of more than $150,000. This measure is a move in the direction of Trump's campaign promise to end taxes on Social Security benefits; lawmakers could not eliminate those taxes under the rules of budget reconciliation, which Republicans are using to advance the package by a simple majority vote and without Democratic support in the Senate. But whatever the reason, Trump's claim that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security, period, remains incorrect. Asked for comment on the Trump claim, the White House asserted in its background material that, under the bill, the vast majority of seniors receiving Social Security income would pay no tax on that income. Trump's own assertion was bigger. Trump warned Thursday of the consequences of allowing the temporary tax cuts from his 2017 tax law to expire rather than making them permanent by passing this new bill – and he invoked a figure he has frequently deployed when promoting the 2025 legislation. 'If the bill doesn't pass, there'll be a 68% tax increase,' he said. 'Think of that: 68%.' Trump again repeated the '68%' warning during Friday remarks at the White House. Facts First: Trump's claim is false. There is no credible basis for the claim that failing to pass the bill would result in anywhere near a 68% tax increase. One analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center think tank found that taxes would rise by an average of about 7.5% in 2026 if Trump's bill didn't pass. Asked for comment by CNN, the White House did not attempt to address the '68%' figure even on condition of anonymity; it also provided no comment to other fact-checkers earlier in the month. In their articles, PolitiFact and noted that it's possible Trump has been wrongly describing a different Tax Policy Center estimate. The think tank found that about 64% of households would pay more taxes in 2026 if the 2017 law's temporary cuts in individual income tax and the estate tax were allowed to expire. That's clearly not the same as saying Americans will face a 64% (or 68%) tax increase. And this wasn't a one-time slip of the tongue by the president.
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
BROADCAST BIAS: Networks shield NYC socialist Mamdani from 'extreme' label they apply to conservatives
Print Close By Tim Graham Published June 28, 2025 Liberals at the network news divisions don't have an objective or nonpartisan vision when it comes to who in politics can be defined as extreme. When you're a liberal, Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders isn't extreme. He's not very far from you. He gets a wave and a smile. But from their place on the political spectrum, conservative Republicans are uniformly "ultraconservative." On the morning after Zohran Mamdani won the Democrat primary for mayor of New York, defeating the merely liberal Andrew Cuomo, the networks could not bear to define a socialist as being a political problem for Democrats. But they could describe him as charming. ABC's Aaron Katersky proclaimed on "Good Morning America" the voters made a "surprise choice to back a young, charismatic socialist who promises to make New York City more affordable, signaling they're ready for a break from the past." MAMDANI'S POLITICAL EARTHQUAKE ROCKS DEMOCRATS, DIVIDING PARTY ON PATH FORWARD Reporter Rachel Scott did say Mamdani ran "very far-left," but it sounded like a positive: "For progressives, this is a good sign for them. They see this as their candidate that ran on a very far-left agenda that talked about affordability." On "CBS Mornings," reporter Jericka Duncan said Mamdani was "a progressive Muslim American immigrant" with "social media savvy" who rode "a wave of anti-establishment sentiment to a shocking victory." That's one weasel word for an extremist: "anti-establishment." Co-host Vladimir Duthiers almost endorsed the winning Democrat: "Meeting people where they are, listening to them and having solutions that they feel speaks to their futures is incredibly powerful." CITY-RUN GROCERY STORES, DEFUNDING POLICE, SAFE INJECTION SITES: WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT NYC'S NEXT POTENTIAL MAYOR On NBC's "Today," reporter Emilie Ikeda defined this candidate as merely on the left side of Cuomo: "Mamdani ran to the left of Cuomo, focusing on affordability and pushing populist ideas, including free public buses, rent freezes and city-owned grocery stores funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. Endorsed by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Mamdani's success signals a potential ideological and generation shift within the party." An ideological shift to the extreme? They couldn't say that. But they aired Mamdani denouncing "Donald Trump's fascism" without any comment or correction. Only ABC's Katersky vaguely mentioned Mamdani "faced criticism over his anti-Israel rhetoric." None noted he released a rap song called "Salaam" in which he praises the "Holy Land Five," who were convicted of funneling millions of dollars to Hamas. DEM SOCIALIST'S NYC PRIMARY UPSET SIGNALS 'GENERATIONAL' SHIFT IN DEMOCRATIC PARTY, STRATEGISTS SAY Mamdani hates Israel and set up his campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine at Bowdoin College in the 2010s and, as a state assemblyman, introduced a controversial bill to strip the nonprofit status of organizations with any links to Israeli settlements. His opponents will make this an issue, even if the networks can't handle it. CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION The "PBS News Hour" on Wednesday night turned for analysis to Errol Louis, who failed in several Democratic primary campaigns for the New York City council. Amna Nawaz, a Pakistani-American Muslim, brought up the dreaded right-wingers and their ugliness: "Errol, we have also seen some pretty ugly attacks awakened in reaction to Mamdani's win. That includes attacks on his faith. He would be the city's first Muslim mayor if he's elected. And we have seen some Islamophobia like this one from the prominent MAGA voice Charlie Kirk. He wrote: 'Twenty-four years ago, a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11. Now a Muslim socialist is on pace to run New York City.' What does all of this mean for the kind of campaign you could see ahead?" Louis said, "hatred and division don't work." On "CBS Mornings," reporter Jericka Duncan said Mamdani was "a progressive Muslim American immigrant" with "social media savvy" who rode "a wave of anti-establishment sentiment to a shocking victory." That's one weasel word for an extremist: "anti-establishment." PBS failed to call Mamdani "far-left," but a new NewsBusters study by Bill D'Agostino described the PBS pattern. From January 21 through June 21, the taxpayer-funded network spoke of the "far left" just three times, and the "far right" 127 times — an absurd 42-to-one ratio. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Could a Mayor Mamdani fail? The Chicago Tribune, which endorsed Joe Biden in 2020, recently ran an editorial titled, "New Yorkers, take it from Chicago — we've seen this movie before, and the ending isn't pretty." The paper wrote: "Most of Mamdani's ideas are shared (at least in principle) by Mayor Brandon Johnson, and many of them are popular in blue cities. But experience has taught us here that far-left candidates do not make for effective or popular municipal executives in today's stressful economy." Just as the networks aren't really interested in how Brandon Johnson is performing in Chicago, no one should expect them to be critical of Zohran Mamdani. Democrat mayors have run deep-blue cities into the ground for 50 years or more, and no one at these networks is going to hold them accountable, any more than Democrat voters do. They save that "accountability" talk for Republicans. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM TIM GRAHAM Tim Graham is the Executive Editor of and co-author with Brent Bozell of "Unmasked: Big Media's War Against Trump." Print Close URL
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Fact check: Trump makes big false claims about his big domestic policy bill
President Donald Trump is using false claims to promote his massive domestic policy bill. In a White House speech on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed Medicaid is 'left the same' by the bill. In fact, both the version of the legislation that was narrowly passed by the House in May and the latest version now being contemplated by the Senate contain major Medicaid policy changes and funding cuts that are expected to result in millions of people losing insurance coverage. Trump also falsely claimed that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security benefits. The legislation would not actually fulfill Trump's campaign promise to completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits, though it would temporarily give seniors a substantially bigger tax deduction. And Trump falsely claimed that 'there'll be a 68% tax increase' if Congress doesn't approve the bill; there is no credible estimate of anything close to a 68% hike. One caveat: since Congress has not yet sent a final bill to Trump's desk, it's possible that legislators will make major changes before the Senate votes. But Trump's claims are inaccurate with regard to the House-approved version and the version senators are considering. Asked for comment on the president's false claims, the White House provided an on-record response that touted the benefits of the bill but did not defend Trump's specific assertions. 'The One, Big, Beautiful Bill is chock-full of the policies that the American people elected President Trump – and Congressional Republicans – to implement,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a Friday email. Here is a fact check. Trump claimed in his Thursday address that people are 'not going to feel any' of the spending cuts included in the bill. He then said, 'Your Medicaid is left alone. It's left the same.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Medicaid is false. The version of the bill that was passed by the House last month would make multiple significant changes to Medicaid and would reduce federal funding for the program by hundreds of billions of dollars. The legislation's Medicaid provisions are expected to result in 7.8 million more people being uninsured in 2034, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid provides health insurance coverage to more than 71 million low-income Americans, including children, people with disabilities, senior citizens, parents and other adults. The House bill would require certain able-bodied adults without dependent children to work, volunteer or participate in other activities for at least 80 hours a month to retain their coverage. It would also enact several provisions that would make it more difficult to sign up for or reenroll in Medicaid. And it would reduce federal support to certain states that provide state-funded coverage to undocumented immigrants. Regardless of the merits of these policies, they are major changes that would not leave Medicaid 'the same.' All told, the changes would reduce federal support for the program by roughly $800 billion over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office projects; the Senate version of the bill has yet to be finalized but contains many similar provisions. Asked for comment on Trump's claim that Medicaid would be 'left the same' by the bill, a White House official provided background material that did not try to corroborate the claim. Rather, the White House defended the bill's proposed changes to Medicaid – saying, for example, that the majority of people the Congressional Budget Office estimated would lose Medicaid under the bill 'are able-bodied adults between the ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and work less than 20 hours per week.' Trump campaigned in 2024 on a promise of no more taxes on Social Security benefits. On Thursday, he said the bill is 'so good' because it includes 'hundreds of things' that will benefit Americans – including 'no tax' on Social Security. He then said in a social media post on Friday that the legislation left Republicans 'on the precipice' of delivering achievements including 'NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR OUR SENIORS.' Facts First: Trump's claim about Social Security is false. The bill would temporarily beef up seniors' standard tax deduction, but it would not completely eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. The House-approved version would give people age 65 and older a $4,000 increase to their standard deduction from 2025 through 2028, whether or not they are receiving Social Security payments yet. The Senate version would provide a $6,000 boost to seniors. In both versions, the benefit would start to phase out for individuals with incomes of more than $75,000 and couples with incomes of more than $150,000. This measure is a move in the direction of Trump's campaign promise to end taxes on Social Security benefits; lawmakers could not eliminate those taxes under the rules of budget reconciliation, which Republicans are using to advance the package by a simple majority vote and without Democratic support in the Senate. But whatever the reason, Trump's claim that the bill includes 'no tax' on Social Security, period, remains incorrect. Asked for comment on the Trump claim, the White House asserted in its background material that, under the bill, the vast majority of seniors receiving Social Security income would pay no tax on that income. Trump's own assertion was bigger. Trump warned Thursday of the consequences of allowing the temporary tax cuts from his 2017 tax law to expire rather than making them permanent by passing this new bill – and he invoked a figure he has frequently deployed when promoting the 2025 legislation. 'If the bill doesn't pass, there'll be a 68% tax increase,' he said. 'Think of that: 68%.' Trump again repeated the '68%' warning during Friday remarks at the White House. Facts First: Trump's claim is false. There is no credible basis for the claim that failing to pass the bill would result in anywhere near a 68% tax increase. One analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center think tank found that taxes would rise by an average of about 7.5% in 2026 if Trump's bill didn't pass. Asked for comment by CNN, the White House did not attempt to address the '68%' figure even on condition of anonymity; it also provided no comment to other fact-checkers earlier in the month. In their articles, PolitiFact and noted that it's possible Trump has been wrongly describing a different Tax Policy Center estimate. The think tank found that about 64% of households would pay more taxes in 2026 if the 2017 law's temporary cuts in individual income tax and the estate tax were allowed to expire. That's clearly not the same as saying Americans will face a 64% (or 68%) tax increase. And this wasn't a one-time slip of the tongue by the president.
