Dozens of people show up for the 'Remove, Reverse, Reclaim Rally' in Sioux City
The rally started in front of the Federal Courthouse building, but was moved to the Sioux City Museum because of the crowd's size. The rally was part of a nationwide movement for people to express their opinions.
'Our liberties are at risk and justice is not dictated by the man in the white house,' said Marie Farrell of Lawton, Iowa. 'We have laws and we have lawmakers, and it outrages me the number of things that are being claimed to be illegal just because someone in the office does not like them.'
'I am here because I see so many people struggle with Medicaid, Medicare,' said Angela McPherson of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 'I work in a pharmacy and to see everyone struggle to pay for what they need. He's trying to take away social security and these people are going to struggle so much more.'
The rally went from 2:00-4:00 p.m. and featured different speakers throughout Saturday afternoon.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Over 23,000 Are Floored By This Text About A MAGA Voter Who Supported Cutting Medicaid... Until He Realized His Children Use It
As you likely know, Donald Trump signed his One Big, Beautiful Bill into law earlier this month, which includes major reductions in federal support for Medicaid. Ultimately, as reported by NPR, this will lead to about 12 million more people being without health insurance by 2034. It doesn't take much brain power to understand why that would be a very, very bad thing. Related: 24 Very, Very, Very, Very Disturbing Facts That Are Seriously So Intense, I'm 99% Sure They're About To Break Your Brain Regardless, some people still struggle with the concept. One such person is the focus of this text exchange that recently went viral on Reddit: In a retelling of a recent conversation between their brother and themself, this texter wrote, "I mentioned in the family chat that 300,000 kids in Iowa are on Medicaid - they will all lose coverage." "My brother is like: well it least it's not touching Hawk-i, that's what my kids are on," they continued. For those outside of Iowa, the state's Medicaid and children's health insurance program is largely known by its nickname: Healthy and Well-Kids in Iowa or... hawk-i. So, upon learning his children's healthcare is in jeopardy, the brother responds with, "What? They better not." Related: 44 Jaw-Droppingly Selfish, Entitled Humans Who Clearly Think The World Revolves Around Them This is all made worse by the fact that the brother, apparently, has been a big proponent of cutting Medicaid. "Dude has been banging the drum for this stupid spending bill for weeks and didn't even realize he was rooting for his own kids losing their insurance," the texter concludes. Mining through the nearly 1,500 comments, a common frustration came from those who have seen stories of people voting against their own interests too many times before. "It's the same thing with people who love the Affordable Care Act, [but] hate 'Obamacare,' and didn't spend the five seconds required to realize that they're the same thing," user Successful_Jelly_213 wrote. Others questioned the brother's morality and wondered aloud why he was OK with children losing their health insurance (as long as they weren't his kids). "So just to clarify, he's good with the other 300,000 kids losing their healthcare, just not his own kids," Sharpymarkr posed. Related: "It's Adding An Absurd Amount Of Joy To My Life" — The 21 Best, Funny, Most Wholesome Posts Online This Week "He never had a single thought about other people. The whole thing was about himself," Prosthemadera agreed. "Whether someone else's family will suffer, how many people will die, he doesn't give a shit." "If your first response to cutting healthcare is 'I'm not affected,' then you're just not a good person, and that doesn't change just because you suddenly care to be against it once you find out you are actually affected. You're just being a selfish, self-centered asshole who will vote Republican again next time because this was never about making the world better." Additionally, "I'm 57 years old, no children, not religious. I have never taken a dime in Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8, or any public programs. I've never even filed for unemployment. But I want my tax dollars to help that guy's kids get healthcare and schooling, and housing. Guess I'm a libtard," weenie2323 said. Elsewhere in the comments, people shared similar stories of dealing with their own MAGA family members: Related: 15 Men Who Tried To "Educate" Women About Their Own Bodies And Failed So, So Miserably "This is my mom," cheongyanggochu-vibe said. "My disabled brother is on Medicaid, which is supplemented by her state. She thinks that because he gets it from the state, he will be fine (even though the funds are majority federal)." "When he gets axed, she will blame her Democratic governor and lawmakers because she doesn't realize how profoundly she benefits from being in a blue state she hates the leaders of." "A colleague of mine lives in Utah, and he meets the threshold for Medicaid; everything is covered. I asked him, 'Say, aren't you worried about this bill working its way through Congress? You could lose your healthcare.' He said, 'What, no, that's for waste fraud and abuse, I'm on the state health care, not Medicaid.'" "I said, 'Uhh, that IS Medicaid, they just don't call it that because of the political stigma.' Absolute deadpan silence," BeautifulTall7833 said. Overall, little sympathy was expressed. "I hope cutting his own child's healthcare was worth it," WeirdProudAndHungry said. "Medicaid literally saved my life. Fuck these people," MidnightNo1766 added. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments. Also in Internet Finds: Women Are Absolutely Destroying The Internet With These 15 Tweets That Had Me Rolling On The Floor Also in Internet Finds: 17 Of The Most Chill-Inducing, Inexplicable Events That People Have Actually Lived Through Also in Internet Finds: People Are Revealing The Moments They Knew They Had To Get Out ASAP, And I'm Never Ignoring My Gut Feelings Again Read it on
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Court Blocks Law Stripping Medicaid Contracts From Planned Parenthood
United States District Judge Indira Talwani for the District of Massachusetts issued an injunction ... More on July 21 shielding ten Planned Parenthood Affiliates. The case challenged a new statutory provision in the budget bill aimed at ending Medicaid funding for Medicaid health care for poor women by Planned Parenthood. (Photo by) Earlier this week, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction partially striking down a new Congressional provision, slipped through in the 'big budget bill,' to cut off Medicaid health care contracting for Planned Parenthood affiliates. It was highly significant for the Republican Congress to try to defund, as government health contractors, Planned Parenthood's state affiliates, and the case will have major repercussions. A review of the court's 36 page opinion shows the battle to be expected as the case goes on appeal. On the one hand, Judge Indira Talwani cautiously limited her shielding only to ten of the forty-seven Planned Parenthood affiliates. These ten do not provide abortions (or are below a statutory funding threshold). While the decision disappointed Planned Parenthood by not extending protection to all affiliates, the judge's narrow focus could make the opinion more resilient on appeal. As the case proceeds, the challengers of the provision argue the case is not about reducing abortions, but about ending Planned Parenthood's providing of Medicaid health care to poor women. On the other hand, if and when the Trump Administration takes this case beyond the court of appeals to the Supreme Court, the question is both how the 6-3 conservative majority will treat Planned Parenthood, and whether the Court will use its 'shadow docket' to rule on the case with minimal due process. The measure, section 71113, is basically the latest of a number of legislative efforts to end government health care contracting with Planned Parenthood. It was no surprise after the 2024 election that there would be another such try by President Trump and the majority Republican House and Senate. The striking approach was to draft the provision in a way to focus just uniquely on Planned Parenthood, and to have it relate enough to Medicaid spending that it could go aboard a budget bill that did not require 60 votes to get past a Senate filibuster. Section 71113 describes as a 'prohibited entity' barred from Medicaid funding either an organization that conducts abortions or is connected to such an abortion provider, i.e., Planned Parenthood's overall Federation, or any 'affiliates' – clearly meaning the 47 Planned Parenthood affiliates – even, and especially, the affiliates that themselves do not conduct any abortions. (No entity can receive Medicaid funding for abortions, narrow exceptions aside, but Planned Parenthood affiliates receive extensive Medicaid funding for women's health and the like.) The provision took effect for Medicaid bills starting the day of passage, the case was immediately filed, and Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts issued initially a temporary restraining order on July 7, and then a preliminary injunction with the 36 page opinion on July 21. Presumably the Trump Administration will take an appeal to the First Circuit, although it may also proceed to take an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, a step known as the 'shadow docket.' By the standards of the past, there might not seem to be an emergency, since what is taking place, in terms of affiliates providing Medicaid health care, has been going on in the same fashion for many years. But, the Trump Administration has had great success rushing cases for such emergency treatment, in the view it would take it would need to affect Medicaid spending immediately, and, as discussed below, there are important tactical advantages to the emergency approach. The court describes the importance of Planned Parenthood's services as a government medical contractor. 'An estimated one out of every three women and one in ten men nationally has received care from a Planned Parenthood Member at least onc in their lifetime, and this number is even higher among individuals with Medicaid, 43% of whom have received services from a Member health center.' (Opinion at 7.) 'Approximately 51% of Planned Parenthood Members' patients rely on Medicaid for their healthcare, and half of visits to Planned Parenthood Members health centers are covered by Medicaid.' (Opinion at 8). With narrow exceptions, Medicaid cannot pay for abortions, even in states where they are legal, and 'Abortions comprise approximately 4% of Planned Parenthood Members' services nationwide.' (Opinion at 7.) As the court analyzed, 'Plaintiffs argue that if Section 71113 covers Planned Parenthood Members that do not provide abortions, the law impose an unconstitutional condition on those Members and Planned Parenthood Federation's First Amendment right of association.' (Opinion (Op.) at 16.) 'Contrary to [the Trump Administration's] assertion, Section 71113 does not merely 'withhold[] funding based on whether entities provide abortion services' but also based on whether 'an entity, including its affiliates,' provides abortion services.' (Op. at 18 (quoting the provision). The court found 'the record demonstrates that Members' affiliation via their membership in Planned Parenthood Federation is express.' Op. at 19. After reviewing the mission and advocacy, the court said 'Membership in Planned Parenthood Federation –and corresponding affiliation with other Members – is thus part and parcel with Planned Parenthood Members' associational expression.' The Administration had justified the law thusly: 'the law effectuates a congressional desire 'to reduce abortion and government subsidization of abortions.'' Op. at 23. Rejecting from the record the Administration's contention that money moved around to abortion, 'the record is devoid of evidentiary support for Defendants' suggestion that Planned Parenthood entities share funds that are ultimately used for abortions.' (Op. at 21) The court also noted that the provision was tailored not to touch others besides Planned Parenthood. 'Defendants do not dispute that conjunctive criteria leave 'virtually all abortion providers who participate in Medicaid—other than Planned Parenthood Members—unaffected' by the legislation.' Op. at 27 (underlining in original). The court's order appears to block section 71113 as to ten affiliates, but does not resolve the case as to the other affiliates. (Then ten protected ones are mainly those not providing abortions, but also those under the statutory threshold of $800,000 in Medicaid funds). It might seem at first that the opinion cautiously proceeded for now as far as to be affirmable on appeal. But, it must be considered what the pattern of the current 6-3 Supreme Court is, particularly since the start of the Trump Administration, but also keeping in mind its pattern ever since overruling Roe v. Wade in the Dobbs decision. No doubt, the 6-3 Court majority would uphold freedom of association for the affiliates of the National Right to Life Committee or the National Rifle Association. To say there is a lack of sympathy for Planned Parenthood is an understatement. Moreover, it would not be impossible for this Court to decide to treat the case as an 'emergency.' The defendants are the Administration, represented in court by the Solicitor General, and he has had signal success to getting the Court's majority to treat cases of injunctions against Administration action as 'emergencies.' He would argue that every day that goes by, the Planned Parenthood affiliates protected by the court's order are wrongly billing services to Medicaid which must be stopped. Moreover, he will get to argue here something he usually cannot: it is not just the Administration's will getting frustrated, it is the will of Congress. For a Court majority that was by itself during the Biden Administration years, it may feel like a welcome moment to have the Trump Administration plus the Republican Congress, albeit by a provision slipped into a big budget bill, seeming to ask it for action. As has been seen so often, if the Court majority treats a case as an 'emergency,' it can forego oral argument – meaning, forego a press and public window – and even forego providing any majority opinion at all. It does not have to explain why it would defund Medicaid care for poor women even by affiliates that perform no abortions. That would seem the wrong way to handle a case worthy, if taken, of full legal treatment – maybe one of the most constitutionally significant government contracting cases for poor women of the Court's year -- but, it could happen. Then again, maybe Judge Talwani's narrow order just addressing ten affiliates will head this off.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Over 23,000 Are Floored By This Text About A MAGA Voter Who Supported Cutting Medicaid... Until He Realized His Children Use It
As you likely know, Donald Trump signed his One Big, Beautiful Bill into law earlier this month, which includes major reductions in federal support for Medicaid. Ultimately, as reported by NPR, this will lead to about 12 million more people being without health insurance by 2034. It doesn't take much brain power to understand why that would be a very, very bad thing. Related: 24 Very, Very, Very, Very Disturbing Facts That Are Seriously So Intense, I'm 99% Sure They're About To Break Your Brain Regardless, some people still struggle with the concept. One such person is the focus of this text exchange that recently went viral on Reddit: In a retelling of a recent conversation between their brother and themself, this texter wrote, "I mentioned in the family chat that 300,000 kids in Iowa are on Medicaid - they will all lose coverage." "My brother is like: well it least it's not touching Hawk-i, that's what my kids are on," they continued. For those outside of Iowa, the state's Medicaid and children's health insurance program is largely known by its nickname: Healthy and Well-Kids in Iowa or... hawk-i. So, upon learning his children's healthcare is in jeopardy, the brother responds with, "What? They better not." Related: 44 Jaw-Droppingly Selfish, Entitled Humans Who Clearly Think The World Revolves Around Them This is all made worse by the fact that the brother, apparently, has been a big proponent of cutting Medicaid. "Dude has been banging the drum for this stupid spending bill for weeks and didn't even realize he was rooting for his own kids losing their insurance," the texter concludes. Mining through the nearly 1,500 comments, a common frustration came from those who have seen stories of people voting against their own interests too many times before. "It's the same thing with people who love the Affordable Care Act, [but] hate 'Obamacare,' and didn't spend the five seconds required to realize that they're the same thing," user Successful_Jelly_213 wrote. Others questioned the brother's morality and wondered aloud why he was OK with children losing their health insurance (as long as they weren't his kids). "So just to clarify, he's good with the other 300,000 kids losing their healthcare, just not his own kids," Sharpymarkr posed. Related: "It's Adding An Absurd Amount Of Joy To My Life" — The 21 Best, Funny, Most Wholesome Posts Online This Week "He never had a single thought about other people. The whole thing was about himself," Prosthemadera agreed. "Whether someone else's family will suffer, how many people will die, he doesn't give a shit." "If your first response to cutting healthcare is 'I'm not affected,' then you're just not a good person, and that doesn't change just because you suddenly care to be against it once you find out you are actually affected. You're just being a selfish, self-centered asshole who will vote Republican again next time because this was never about making the world better." Additionally, "I'm 57 years old, no children, not religious. I have never taken a dime in Medicaid, food stamps, Section 8, or any public programs. I've never even filed for unemployment. But I want my tax dollars to help that guy's kids get healthcare and schooling, and housing. Guess I'm a libtard," weenie2323 said. Elsewhere in the comments, people shared similar stories of dealing with their own MAGA family members: Related: 15 Men Who Tried To "Educate" Women About Their Own Bodies And Failed So, So Miserably "This is my mom," cheongyanggochu-vibe said. "My disabled brother is on Medicaid, which is supplemented by her state. She thinks that because he gets it from the state, he will be fine (even though the funds are majority federal)." "When he gets axed, she will blame her Democratic governor and lawmakers because she doesn't realize how profoundly she benefits from being in a blue state she hates the leaders of." "A colleague of mine lives in Utah, and he meets the threshold for Medicaid; everything is covered. I asked him, 'Say, aren't you worried about this bill working its way through Congress? You could lose your healthcare.' He said, 'What, no, that's for waste fraud and abuse, I'm on the state health care, not Medicaid.'" "I said, 'Uhh, that IS Medicaid, they just don't call it that because of the political stigma.' Absolute deadpan silence," BeautifulTall7833 said. Overall, little sympathy was expressed. "I hope cutting his own child's healthcare was worth it," WeirdProudAndHungry said. "Medicaid literally saved my life. Fuck these people," MidnightNo1766 added. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments. Also in Internet Finds: Women Are Absolutely Destroying The Internet With These 15 Tweets That Had Me Rolling On The Floor Also in Internet Finds: 17 Of The Most Chill-Inducing, Inexplicable Events That People Have Actually Lived Through Also in Internet Finds: People Are Revealing The Moments They Knew They Had To Get Out ASAP, And I'm Never Ignoring My Gut Feelings Again Read it on
