US Supreme Court backs South Carolina effort to defund Planned Parenthood
The United States Supreme Court has cleared the way for South Carolina to strip the nonprofit healthcare provider Planned Parenthood of funding under Medicaid, a government insurance programme.
Thursday's ruling was split along ideological lines, with the three liberal justices on the nine-member court dissenting.
The ruling overturned a lower court's decision barring Republican-governed South Carolina from preventing Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a regional branch, from participating in the state's Medicaid programme.
Republican leaders in South Carolina have objected to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions.
The Supreme Court's decision bolsters efforts by Republican-led states to deprive the reproductive healthcare provider of public money.
The case centred on whether recipients of Medicaid may sue to enforce a requirement under US law that they may obtain medical assistance from any qualified and willing provider. Medicaid is administered jointly by the federal and state governments, and it is designed to provide healthcare coverage for low-income people.
Since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe v Wade ruling that legalised abortion nationwide, a number of Republican-led states have implemented near-total bans on the procedure. Some, like South Carolina, prohibit abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates clinics in the South Carolina cities of Charleston and Columbia, where it serves hundreds of Medicaid patients each year, providing physical examinations, screenings for cancer and diabetes, pregnancy testing, contraception and other services.
The Planned Parenthood affiliate and a Medicaid patient named Julie Edwards sued the state in 2018. A year earlier, in 2017, Republican Governor Henry McMaster had ordered officials to end Planned Parenthood's participation in the state Medicaid programme by deeming any abortion provider unqualified to provide family planning services.
The plaintiffs sued South Carolina under an 1871 law that helps people challenge illegal acts by state officials. They said the Medicaid law protects what they called a 'deeply personal right' to choose one's doctor.
The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative legal group and backed by President Donald Trump's administration, said the disputed Medicaid provision in this case does not meet the 'high bar for recognising private rights'.
A federal judge previously ruled in Planned Parenthood's favour, finding that Medicaid recipients may sue under the 1871 law and that the state's move to defund the organisation violated Edwards's right to freely choose a qualified medical provider.
In 2024, the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, also sided with the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 2.
The dispute has reached the Supreme Court three times. The court in 2020 rejected South Carolina's appeal at an earlier stage of the case. In 2023, it ordered a lower court to reconsider South Carolina's arguments in light of a ruling the justices issued involving the rights of nursing home residents.
That decision explained that laws like Medicaid must unambiguously give individuals the right to sue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
42 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
What is Canada's digital tax and why is Trump killing trade talks over it?
As Canada pushes ahead with a new digital services tax on foreign and domestic technology companies, United States President Donald Trump has retaliated by ending all trade talks and threatened to impose additional tariffs on exports from Ottawa. In a post on his Truth Social platform on Friday, Trump called the new Canadian tax structure a 'direct and blatant attack on our country', adding that Canada is 'a very difficult country to trade with'. 'Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately,' he wrote. He added that he would announce new tariffs of his own for Canada in a matter of days. US companies such as Amazon, Meta, Google and Uber face an estimated $2bn in bills under the new tax. Trump's decision marks a sharp return to trade tensions between the two countries, abruptly ending a more cooperative phase since Mark Carney's election as Canada's prime minister in March. It also marks a further escalation in the trade-as-pressure tactic under Trump's second term in Washington. The US is Canada's largest trading partner by far, with more than 80 percent of Canadian exports destined for the US. In 2024, total bilateral goods trade exceeded US$762bn, with Canada exporting $412.7bn and importing $349.4bn – leaving the US, which counts Canada as its second-largest trading partner, with a goods deficit of $63.3bn. A disruption due to tariffs on products like automobiles, minerals, energy or aluminium could have large ripple effects across both economies. So, what is Canada's digital tax? Why is Carney facing domestic pushback on the taxes? And how is Washington responding? What is Canada's digital services tax? Canada's Digital Services Tax Act (DSTA) came into force in June last year. It is a levy on tech revenues generated from Canadian users – even if providers do not have a physical presence in the country. The DSTA was first proposed during the 2019 federal election under then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and received approval in Canada on June 20, 2024. It came into force a week later, on June 28. The first payments of this tax are due on Monday, June 30, 2025. Large technology firms with global revenues exceeding $820m and Canadian revenues of more than $14.7m must pay a 3 percent levy on certain digital services revenues earned in Canada. Unlike traditional corporate taxes based on profits, this tax targets gross revenue linked to Canadian user engagement. Digital services the levy will apply to include: Online marketplaces, social media platforms, digital advertising and the sale or licensing of user data. One of the most contentious parts of the new framework for businesses is its retroactive nature, which demands payments on revenues dating back to January 1, 2022. Why is Trump suspending trade talks over the new tax? On June 11, 21 US Congress members sent a letter to President Trump, urging him to pressure Canada to eliminate or pause its Digital Services Tax. 'If Canada decides to move forward with this unprecedented, retroactive tax, it will set a terrible precedent that will have long-lasting impacts on global tax and trade practices,' they wrote. Then, in a Truth Social post on Friday this week, Trump said Canada had confirmed it would continue with its new digital services tax 'on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country'. He added that the US would be 'terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately' and that he would be levying new tariffs of his own on Canada within seven days. 'They have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products,' Trump said, adding, 'We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.' Later, at the Oval Office, Trump doubled down, saying: 'We have all the cards. We have every single one.' He noted that the US holds 'such power over Canada [economically]'. 'We'd rather not use it,' Trump said, adding: 'It's not going to work out well for Canada. They were foolish to do it. 'Most of their business is with us, and when you have that circumstance, you treat people better.' Trump also said he would order a Section 301 investigation under the Trade Act to assess the DSTA's effect on US commerce, which could potentially lead to other punitive measures. On Friday, White House National Economic Council director, Kevin Hassett, told the Fox Business Friday programme: 'They're taxing American companies who don't necessarily even have a presence in Canada.' Calling the tax 'almost criminal', he said: 'They're going to have to remove it. And I think they know that.' How has Canada responded? Relations had seemed friendlier between the two North American neighbours in recent months as they continue with trade talks. Trump and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had clashed previously – with Trump calling Trudeau 'very dishonest' and 'weak' during the 2018 G7 talks in Canada. But newly elected Carney enjoyed a cordial visit with Trump in May at the White House, while Trump travelled to Canada for the G7 summit in Alberta on June 16 and 17. Carney said at the summit that the two had set a 30-day deadline for trade talks. In a brief statement on Friday, Prime Minister Carney's office said of Trump's new threats to suspend trade talks over the digital tax: 'The Canadian government will continue to engage in these complex negotiations with the United States in the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses.' Last week, Canadian Finance Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne told reporters that the digital tax could be negotiated as part of the broader, ongoing US-Canada trade discussions. 'Obviously, all of that is something that we're considering as part of broader discussions that you may have,' he had said. Those discussions had been expected to result in a trade deal in July. However, they are now in limbo. What do Canadian business leaders say? Carney has been facing pressure from domestic businesses as well, which have lobbied the government to pause the digital services tax, underlining that the new framework would increase their costs for providing services and warning against retaliation from the US. The Business Council of Canada, a nonprofit organisation representing CEOs and leaders of major Canadian companies, said in a statement that, for years, it 'has warned that the implementation of a unilateral digital services tax could risk undermining Canada's economic relationship with its most important trading partner, the United States'. 'That unfortunate development has now come to pass,' the statement noted. 'In an effort to get trade negotiations back on track, Canada should put forward an immediate proposal to eliminate the DST in exchange for the elimination of tariffs from the United States.' Has Trump used tariffs to pressure Canada before? Yes. Prior to the DSTA, Trump has used tariffs to pressure Canada over what he says is its role in the flow of the addictive drug, fentanyl, and undocumented migration into the US, as well as broader trade and economic issues. On January 20, in his inaugural address, Trump announced a 25 percent tariff on all Canadian goods and a 10 percent tariff on Canadian energy resources. Trump claimed that Canada has a 'growing footprint' in fentanyl production, and alleged that Mexican cartels operate fentanyl labs in Canada, particularly in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. These tariffs were paused for 30 days following assurances from Canada that appropriate action would be taken to curb the flow of fentanyl, and then re-imposed in early March. Do other countries levy a similar digital tax? Yes, several countries around the world have introduced digital services taxes (DSTs) similar to Canada's. France was one of the first to introduce a DST in 2019, eliciting an angry response from Trump who was serving his first term as president. The French tax is a 3 percent levy on revenues from online advertising, digital platforms and sales of user data. The UK followed with a 2 percent tax on revenues from social media platforms and search engines. Spain, Italy, and Austria have also implemented similar taxes, with rates ranging from 3 to 5 percent. Turkiye has one of the highest DST rates at 7.5 percent, covering a wide range of digital services such as content streaming and advertising. Outside Europe, India has a 2 percent 'equalisation levy' on foreign e-commerce operators which earn revenues from Indian users. Kenya and Indonesia have also created their own digital tax systems, though they're structured slightly differently – Indonesia, for instance, applies Value Added Tax (VAT) – or sales tax – on foreign digital services, rather than a DST. The US government has strongly opposed these taxes; some of these disputes have been paused as part of ongoing negotiations led by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international organisation made up of 38 member countries, which is working on a global agreement for taxing digital companies fairly. Canada held off on implementing its DST until 2024 to give time for the OECD talks. But when progress stalled, it went ahead with the 3 percent tax that applies retroactively since January 2022. Should the EU be worried about this? The European Union is likely to be watching this situation closely as digital tax is likely to be a key concern during its own trade talks with the US. Trump has repeatedly warned that similar tax measures from other allies, including EU countries, could face severe retaliation. Trump's administration has previously objected to digital taxes introduced by EU member states like France, Italy, and Spain. In 2020, the US Trade Representative investigated these taxes under Section 301 and threatened retaliatory tariffs, though those were paused pending OECD-led global tax negotiations. The European Commission has confirmed that digital taxation remains on the agenda, especially if a global deal under the OECD fails to materialise. President Ursula von der Leyen said on June 26 that 'all options remain on the table' in trade discussions with the US, including enforcement mechanisms against discriminatory US measures. The high-stakes trade negotiations ongoing between the US and the EU have a deadline for July 9 – the date that Trump's 90-day pause on global reciprocal tariffs is due to expire. Trump has threatened to impose new tariffs of up to 50 percent on key European exports, including cars and steel, if a deal is not reached. In response to these threats, the EU has prepared a list of retaliatory tariffs worth up to 95 billion euros ($111.4bn), which would target a broad range of US exports, from agricultural products to Boeing aircraft. EU leaders have signalled that they will defend the bloc's tax sovereignty, while remaining open to negotiation.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
What is Thimerosal, vaccine preservative called ‘toxic' by US health chief?
During the first meeting of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr's recently downsized vaccine panel, the group voted to stop recommending flu vaccines containing thimerosal, a vaccine preservative. In a lengthy June 24 X post that preceded the meeting, Kennedy, who spent two decades as an anti-vaccine movement leader, described thimerosal using terms such as 'toxic' and said hundreds of studies identify it as a carcinogenic 'potent neurotoxin'. He also said there are high doses of mercury in flu shots recommended to pregnant women and children. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunisation Practices' (ACIP) two-day meeting on June 25 and 26 included discussion of vaccines containing thimerosal before its vote on flu vaccines. ACIP is an independent group which provides vaccine recommendations the CDC director reviews and decides whether to formally adopt. Earlier in June, Kennedy dismissed 17 ACIP members, replacing them with seven new members, including people who've expressed doubt about vaccine efficacy and promoted anti-vaccine falsehoods. Doctors and scientists who study vaccines have been researching thimerosal's use for decades. Here's what we know about the vaccine preservative and its removal from flu vaccines. What is thimerosal? Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative used in some vaccines. Many people – particularly those who are pregnant or breastfeeding – encounter warnings about consuming mercury, such as in seafood. But those warnings are about methylmercury, which is found in certain kinds of fish and is known to be toxic to people when consumed at high levels. Thimerosal contains ethylmercury – a single-letter difference that might not sound significant, but is. Human bodies can break down and excrete ethylmercury quickly, meaning it is less likely to cause harm. By contrast, methylmercury is more likely to accumulate in the body and cause harm. In vaccines, thimerosal is added to prevent harmful microbes such as bacteria and fungi from growing in vaccine vials. 'Introduction of bacteria and fungi has the potential to occur when a syringe needle enters a vial as a vaccine is being prepared for administration,' the CDC's website said. 'Contamination by germs in a vaccine could cause severe local reactions, serious illness or death. In some vaccines, preservatives, including thimerosal, are added during the manufacturing process to prevent germ growth.' Thimerosal has been at the heart of Kennedy's anti-vaccine activism for 20 years. In 2005, Kennedy wrote an article co-published by Rolling Stone and Salon that alleged leading health agencies including the CDC and US Food and Drug Administration had colluded with vaccine manufacturers to conceal a study that found thimerosal 'may have caused autism in thousands of kids'. Scientists and researchers said Kennedy's argument was inaccurate and misleading. Continued research has found no link between thimerosal and autism. Kennedy's article was removed from Rolling Stone, and Salon retracted it in 2011. In 2015, Kennedy wrote a book opposing thimerosal's use in vaccines. Which vaccines use thimerosal? Thimerosal is not used in the vast majority of vaccines. All vaccines the CDC routinely recommends for children age six or younger are available without thimerosal. Children receiving the routine paediatric vaccine schedule 'can get completely immunised without any thimerosal-containing vaccines', said Dr Mark Sawyer, a paediatrics professor at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine and a paediatric infectious disease physician. Some childhood vaccines have never contained thimerosal. These include the measles, mumps and rubella – or MMR – vaccine, the varicella or chickenpox vaccine, the inactivated polio vaccine and the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Thimerosal was removed from most vaccines – including all childhood vaccines – as of 2001, the CDC said. Thimerosal is still used in vaccines today, but not as widely. The preservative is in only a small fraction of influenza vaccine vials, specifically the multi-dose vials that constitute a small portion of the US flu shot supply, Dr Jake Scott told PolitiFact. Scott is a Stanford University School of Medicine infectious disease specialist. The FDA said thimerosal use has declined as vaccine manufacturers have developed more single-dose vaccines that do not require preservatives. Scott said the CDC lists 12 influenza vaccine formulations for the 2024 to 2025 flu season, which will also cover the 2025 to 2026 season because no new flu vaccines have been licensed. Of those 12 vaccines, just three are multi-dose vaccines that contain thimerosal at 25 micrograms – equal to 25 millionths of a gram – per dose, he said. CDC's supply data shows single-dose, thimerosal-free syringes make up about 96 percent of the US flu vaccine supply, leaving roughly 4 percent as multi-dose vials, Scott said. 'Single-dose syringes are the default for paediatrics and prenatal care, so real-world exposure is even lower,' he said. Because flu vaccines with thimerosal constitute a small portion of the influenza vaccine supply, public health experts told The Washington Post the committee's vote to stop recommending them would have a limited impact, although it could make flu shots more expensive and less accessible in some parts of the US. What does research show about thimerosal? Because anti-vaccine activists' focus has centred on whether thimerosal causes autism, numerous scientific studies have investigated a potential link and found no causal relationship between the preservative and autism. When scientists evaluated thimerosal's potential impacts and risks they found: Giving infants vaccines containing thimerosal 'does not seem to raise blood concentrations of mercury above safe values in infants' as the ethylmercury 'seems to be eliminated from blood rapidly via the stools' after vaccination. Three controlled and two uncontrolled observational studies 'consistently provided evidence of no association' between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. 'No scientific evidence exists that thimerosal-containing vaccines are a cause of adverse events among children born to women who received influenza vaccine during pregnancy.' Vaccine researchers told PolitiFact that thimerosal was removed from vaccines out of an abundance of caution, not because research proved that thimerosal was unsafe. Thimerosal was removed from vaccines because people thought it might cause problems, said Rachel Roper, a microbiology and immunology professor at East Carolina University. But ultimately, 'studies were done and it was shown to be safe'. There's no evidence to date that thimerosal 'causes any harm whatsoever', Sawyer said.
Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What cases did the US Supreme Court decide at the end of its 2024 term?
The United States Supreme Court has ended its latest term with a host of blockbuster decisions, touching on everything from healthcare coverage to school reading lists. On Friday, the court issued the final decisions of the 2024 term before it takes several months of recess. The nine justices on its bench will reconvene in October. But before their departure, the justices made headlines. In a major victory for the administration of President Donald Trump, the six-person conservative majority decided to limit the ability of courts to issue universal injunctions that would block executive actions nationwide. Trump has long denounced court injunctions as an attack on his executive authority. In two other rulings, the Supreme Court's conservative majority again banded together. One decision allowed parents to opt out of school materials that include LGBTQ themes, while the other gave the go-ahead to Texas to place barriers to prevent youth from viewing online pornography. But a decision on healthcare access saw some conservative justices align with their three left-wing colleagues. Here is an overview of their final rulings of the 2024 term. Court upholds preventive care requirements In the case of Kennedy v Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court saw its usual ideological divides fracture. Three conservative justices – Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts – joined with the court's liberal branch, represented by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, for a six-to-three ruling. At stake was the ability of a government task force to determine what kinds of preventive healthcare the country's insurance providers had to cover. It was the latest case to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation passed under former President Barack Obama to expand healthcare access. This case focused on a section of the act that allowed a panel of health experts – under the Department of Health and Human Services – to determine what preventive services should be covered at no cost. A group of individuals and Christian-owned businesses had challenged the legality of that task force, though. They argued that the expert panel was a violation of the Appointments Clause, a section of the Constitution that requires certain political appointees to be chosen by the president and approved by the Senate. The group had previously secured an injunction against the task force's decision that HIV prevention medications be covered as preventive care. That specific injunction was not weighed in the Supreme Court's decision. But writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh affirmed that the task force was constitutional, because it was made up of 'inferior officers' who did not need Senate approval. Court gives nod to Texas's age restrictions on porn Several states, including Texas, require users to verify their age before accessing pornographic websites, with the aim of shielding minors from inappropriate material. But Texas's law came under the Supreme Court's microscope on Friday, in a case called Free Speech Coalition v Ken Paxton. The Free Speech Coalition is a nonprofit that represents workers in the adult entertainment industry. They sued Texas's attorney general, Paxton, arguing that the age-verification law would dampen First Amendment rights, which protect the right to free expression, free association and privacy. The plaintiffs noted the risks posed by sharing personally identifying information online, including the possibility that identifying information like birthdates and sensitive data could be leaked. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, warned that Texas's law 'robs people of anonymity'. Writing for the Supreme Court's conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that 'submitting to age verification is a burden on the exercise' of First Amendment rights. But, he added, 'adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification' altogether. The majority upheld Texas's law. Court affirms children can withdraw from LGBTQ school material The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority also continued its streak of religious freedom victories, with a decision in Mahmoud v Taylor. That case centred on the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland, where books portraying LGBTQ themes had been approved for use in primary school curricula. One text, for example, was a picture book called Love, Violet, which told the story of a young girl mustering the courage to give a Valentine to a female classmate. Another book, titled Pride Puppy, follows a child searching for her lost dog during an annual parade to celebrate LGBTQ pride. Parents of children in the school district objected to the material on religious grounds, and some books, like Pride Puppy, were eventually withdrawn. But the board eventually announced it would refuse to allow parents to opt out of the approved material, on the basis that it would create disruptions in the learning environment. Some education officials also argued that allowing kids to opt out of LGBTQ material would confer a stigma on the people who identify as part of that community – and that LGBTQ people were simply a fact of life. In the majority's decision, Justice Samuel Alito asserted that the education board's policy 'conveys that parents' religious views are not welcome in the 'fully inclusive environment' that the Board purports to foster'. 'The curriculum itself also betrays an attempt to impose ideological conformity with specific views on sexuality and gender,' Alito wrote. Court limits the use of nationwide injunctions Arguably, the biggest decision of the day was another ruling decided by the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. In the case Trump v CASA, the Trump administration had appealed the use of nationwide injunctions all the way up to the highest court in the land. At stake was an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office for his second term. That order sought to whittle down the concept of birthright citizenship, a right conferred under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Previously, birthright citizenship had applied to nearly everyone born on US soil: Regardless of their parents' nationality, the child would receive US citizenship. But Trump has denounced that application of birthright citizenship as too broad. In his executive order, he put restrictions on birthright citizenship depending on whether the parents were undocumented immigrants. Legal challenges erupted as soon as the executive order was published, citing Supreme Court precedent that upheld birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of the parent. Federal courts in states like Maryland and Washington quickly issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the executive order from taking effect. The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh the merits of Trump's order on birthright citizenship. But it did evaluate a Trump administration petition arguing that the nationwide injunctions were instances of judicial overreach. The conservative supermajority sided with Trump, saying that injunctions should generally not be universal but instead should focus on relief for the specific plaintiffs at hand. One possible exception, however, would be for class action lawsuits. Amy Coney Barrett, the court's latest addition and a Trump appointee, penned the majority's decision. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.'
