Latest news with #PlannedParenthood
Black America Web
8 hours ago
- Health
- Black America Web
SCOTUS Medicaid Decision Could Defund Planned Parenthood
Source: Kevin Hagen / Getty A new decision from the ultraconservative SCOTUS majority involving Medicaid dealt another blow to reproductive rights in a decision that could set the stage for states to defund Planned Parenthood. In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic , the Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that the federal law at issue does not allow Medicaid recipients the right to sue to enforce their choice of provider. According to the ultraconservative majority, Medicaid recipients do have a right under federal law to choose their own provider. But they cannot sue to enforce that right even where a state takes the decision away from them, as is the case in South Carolina. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, joined by patient Julie Edwards, challenged a 2018 South Carolina executive order that banned access to federal Medicaid funding for non-abortion health care if a clinic also provided abortions. Edwards reportedly joined the litigation as an impacted patient who had found supportive doctors and care at Planned Parenthood. The decision also comes just days after the third anniversary of the devastating SCOTUS decision in Dobbs. Emboldened by the win, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster defended the policy in a statement issued shortly after the Court's decision, focusing on abortion and not the people who would lose access to necessary healthcare provided by Planned Parenthood. Medicaid already cannot pay for abortions except in very limited circumstances. Writing a stern dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called out her colleagues in the majority for disregarding existing Supreme Court precedent and 'enforceable right' created by the Medicaid Act's free-choice-of-provider provision. Drawing on history and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Jackson explained why and how Congress gave private citizens the right to sue to enforce rights made available by the Constitution and other federal laws. In this case, she said that the 'provision states that every Medicaid plan 'must… provide that… any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required,'' Jackson wrote. 'And Congress reinforced its rights-creating intent by making the provision mandatory—it specifically inserted the word 'must' into the statute—to make clear that the obligation imposed on the States was binding. If Congress did not want to protect Medicaid recipients' freedom to choose their own providers, it would have likely avoided using a combination of classically compulsory language and explicit individual-centric terminology.' In many ways, the decision leaves Medicaid recipients without recourse in states with leadership fixated on defunding Planned Parenthood or otherwise instituting political litmus tests for healthcare. Responding to the decision, South Carolina State Senators Margie Bright Matthews and Tameika Isaas Devine called the ruling a 'gut punch' to those who rely on Planned Parenthood for basic healthcare. 'By allowing the state to block a qualified provider from the Medicaid program, the Court has put politics ahead of public health,' the senators wrote. 'The real price of this decision will be paid by patients, especially Black, Brown, and rural women who now face fewer options and greater barriers to care.' In a statement posted to Instagram, Planned Parenthood called the decision an 'injustice.' 'SCOTUS's decision in Medina v. PPSAT today is a blow to Medicaid patients' freedom to access health care at their chosen provider,' the statement read. 'It also effectively may allow lawmakers to deny people the care they need and trust. Public officials should not decide where or how you get the quality, affordable health care you need.' As noted in a May 2025 policy brief from KFF, defunding Planned Parenthood has been a major aim of anti-abortion groups and policymakers for many years. Nationally, 1 in 3 women reported receiving care at a Planned Parenthood Clinic. According to KFF, an estimated 36% of South Carolina women aged 19 to 64 received Medicaid in 2023. Now, nearly 60 years after Congress established Medicaid, Congressional Republicans propose deep cuts to Medicaid and reproductive health more broadly. The impact of limiting support for reproductive healthcare could have dire implications for Black women and their families. South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain called out the denial of healthcare based on an anti-abortion agenda. She noted the increased barrier to treatment for people seeking cancer screenings, STI treatment, contraception, and other preventative care services. 'This case was never about fiscal responsibility; it was about targeting a trusted healthcare provider for purely ideological, partisan reasons,' Spain said. 'Let's call this what it is: an effort to control people's bodies, silence their choices, and limit their options. South Carolinians deserve better.' SEE ALSO: Kendrick Sampson's BLD PWR Teams Up With SisterSong And GBEF For Houston Juneteenth Event Adriana Smith's Family Says Goodbye, Asks For Prayers For Newborn Son SEE ALSO SCOTUS Medicaid Decision Could Defund Planned Parenthood was originally published on
Wall Street Journal
11 hours ago
- Health
- Wall Street Journal
Ejecting Planned Parenthood From Medicaid
South Carolina's effort to stop its Medicaid program from funding Planned Parenthood has been tied up in the courts for years, but on Thursday the Supreme Court gave the state a big win. In a 6-3 ruling, the Justices said the federal Medicaid law doesn't create an 'enforceable right' that Planned Parenthood or its patients can sue to vindicate. The Medicaid statute says states must let recipients get care from any 'qualified' provider, though it doesn't define that term. South Carolina's Governor issued an order in 2018 to deem abortion providers unqualified. 'The payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life,' he said. Planned Parenthood sued, along with one of its Medicaid patients, Julie Edwards, who was seeking birth control and routine services. But as Justice Neil Gorsuch writes for the Court's six conservatives in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, Congress can put conditions on federal funding, such as for Medicaid, without creating any 'right' for private citizens to enforce those terms in court. 'Though it is rare enough for any statute to confer an enforceable right, spending-power statutes like Medicaid are especially unlikely to do so,' Justice Gorsuch says. He surveys the history and finds that 'early courts described federal grants not as commands but as contracts.' If Congress wants to create an enforceable right, it must do so unambiguously.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Birthright citizenship, porn ID laws, LGBTQ books in schools: A guide to the Supreme Court's biggest decisions as it closes out its term
The Supreme Court issued a flurry of consequential decisions on Friday as it wrapped up its unfinished business before adjourning for summer break. Five separate rulings were released on Friday morning, including three highly anticipated opinions on LGBTQ lessons in public schools, age verification for porn sites and birthright citizenship. Those rulings came a day after the high court found that states have the power to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding for all services it provides. The high court also issued opinions in other, bigger blockbuster cases earlier this term: it upheld a Biden administration rule that regulates ghost guns; it blocked a contract for the nation's first religious charter school in Oklahoma; it allowed a lawsuit from an Ohio woman who alleges she was discriminated against for being straight to proceed; and it blocked Mexico's multi-billion dollar lawsuit from proceeding against U.S. gun manufacturers. Advertisement Let's take a look at some of the most important cases that SCOTUS decided this term, what those rulings mean, and what questions the justices have left unanswered. Defunding Planned Parenthood Case: Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic Decided: June 26, 2025 Case argued: April 2, 2025 The ruling: Medicaid consists of federal and state funds that help low-income people cover medical costs. Public health funds generally can't be used for abortions, but this case centered around whether South Carolina or other states could block that money from being used for any of the other services that Planned Parenthood provides — things like contraception, cancer screenings and other reproductive health procedures. Advertisement In a 6-3 ruling split along ideological lines, the justices found that states can indeed block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds entirely. Planned Parenthood and other health organizations had argued that cutting off these funds would harm poor South Carolina residents who may struggle to find other providers that accept Medicaid, but Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that any fallout from the funding freeze was 'a policy question for Congress, not courts.' What the ruling means: The ruling could prove to be a major blow for Planned Parenthood, which has been a longtime target of conservatives because it provides abortions, among many other health services. Other conservative states may follow South Carolina's lead in barring Planned Parenthood from receiving any public funds, which could make it even more difficult for low-income Americans to access healthcare. Nationwide injunctions (aka the birthright citizenship case) Case: Trump v. CASA Advertisement Decided: June 27, 2025 Case argued: May 15, 2025 The ruling: Though the case centers around Trump's order to rescind birthright citizenship, the actual question before the court was about how much power courts have to stop laws or orders they believe to be illegal from going into effect. In a 6-3 decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the high court placed new limits on when lower courts can issue what are known as universal injunctions — which judges can use to block a policy nationwide while its legality is being considered by the courts — when they are 'broader than necessary to provide complete relief.' She explicitly wrote that today's decision 'does not address' the constitutionality of Trump's attempt to eliminate the right to birthright citizenship. Advertisement What the ruling means: Though the highest-profile question involved here will have to be decided another day, this decision could have huge implications for future cases on any number of issues. Because of this ruling, one of the most important tools that federal courts have to stand in the way of what they deem to be illegal orders — a tool they have routinely used against both Democratic and Republican presidents — will be significantly less potent. It also sets the stage for Trump to prepare to put his plan to revoke birthright citizenship into motion, which he said he would order his administration to do 'promptly' in response to the ruling. Parents' religious rights vs. LGBTQ books in public schools Case: Mahmoud v. Taylor Decided: June 27, 2025 Advertisement Case argued: April 22, 2025 Read more from Slate: SCOTUS rules in favor of parents seeking to opt children out of reading LGBTQ books The ruling: The court ruled that a group of Maryland parents have the right to opt their children out of lessons at their public elementary schools with LGBTQ-inclusive storybooks that they feel violate their religious beliefs. The parents had argued that the lessons, which were a mandatory part of the school curriculum, 'unconstitutionally burden' their rights to religious freedom. Though Friday's ruling did not provide a final judgment on that claim, the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito found that the parents are likely to win when that case is decided in the future and would suffer 'irreparable harm' if their children were forced to attend the lessons in the interim. Advertisement What the ruling means: Though there is still more to come in this case, this decision on its own marks a significant step toward granting parents more power over what is taught in public schools and could set the stage for religious viewpoints — particularly Christian viewpoints — having a stronger influence over secular education. Writing in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the decision creates a 'parental veto power' in schools that 'threatens the very essence of public education.' Age verification for porn sites Case: Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton Decided: June 27, 2025 Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025 Advertisement Read more: Supreme Court upholds Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing pornography online The ruling: The justices upheld a 2023 Texas law that requires users of porn websites to verify their age before accessing explicit material. Free speech organizations and the porn industry had challenged the law, arguing that it burdens adults' access to content they are legally allowed to consume and it violates their First Amendment rights. In a 6-3 decision, the court rejected that argument on the grounds that 'requiring proof of age is an ordinary and appropriate means' of preventing minors from accessing obscene content. What the ruling means: Currently, 24 states have passed laws requiring some sort of age verification in order to access porn sites, with the goal of protecting minors under the age of 18 from accessing sexual content on the internet. The ruling by the justices will not just affect Texas, but it will have implications for these other laws as well. Transgender care for minors Case: United States v. Skrmetti Advertisement Decided: June 18, 2025 Case argued: Jan. 15, 2025 Read more: US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law banning youth transgender care The ruling: In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the justices ruled that a Tennessee law banning gender affirming care for minors does not violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Groups of transgender minors, their parents, and healthcare providers had challenged the law, making the case that it discriminates against transgender children on the basis of sex since many common treatments for gender dysphoria (including puberty blockers and hormone therapy) are readily available to non-transgender kids. The justices rejected that argument, ruling that the law only dictates who can receive treatments based on specific diagnoses and age, which are not protected classes in the eyes of the law. Advertisement What the ruling means: There are currently 27 states that have enacted similar laws to restrict gender-transition care, though some of those bans are tied up in legal challenges. Wednesday's ruling means those laws will likely survive those legal challenges. The decision does not have any impact on states that don't have laws banning gender-affirming care. Drawing Louisiana's congressional maps Case: Louisiana v. Callais Case originally argued: March 24, 2025 (more arguments set for next term) Read more: Supreme Court defers decision on challenge to Louisiana congressional map The issue: In a surprise move, the court did not release an opinion on its last outstanding case of the term. Instead, it ordered that more arguments be held during its next term, which starts in the fall. The case concerns a congressional redistricting map in Louisiana that has been ensnared in years of legal battles. Following the 2020 Census, the Louisiana state legislature redrew a congressional map of the state's six House districts in response to population shifts. But the state was sued because it only included one majority-Black district, even though the state's entire population is one-third Black. The plaintiffs argued that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting practices or procedures from discriminating against a voter based on race or color. A federal district judge ordered that the maps be redrawn. The GOP-led state legislature redrew the maps to include a second majority-Black district. But Louisiana was sued again by a group of self-described non-Black voters who argued the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause. This time, a divided panel of three federal judges sided with the group. That's why Louisiana has asked the Supreme Court to intervene and decide whether the latest version of the state's congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violates the 14th Amendment. What's at stake: The Supreme Court ruling could shift the congressional majority-Black districts in Louisiana. But it also has national implications. The balance of political power in the House of Representatives has frequently come down to razor-thin margins. The final ruling may ultimately shift the criteria that are used to draw up congressional districts, which play a major role in determining the balance of power in Congress.
Fox News
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Cuomo Blamed for Barely Campaigning As Dems Plot to Stop Zohran Mamdani
Howie Kurtz on the Supreme Court ruling states can block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, questions remaining on the assessment of success of the Iran strike and Andrew Cuomo remaining in NYC mayoral race despite surprise loss to democrat socialist. Follow Howie on Twitter: @HowardKurtz For more #MediaBuzz click here
Wall Street Journal
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Live Q&A: The Supreme Court in the Trump Era—Ask Our Reporters Your Questions
What questions do you have about the decisions the Supreme Court has made or is about to make this term? The Court has already issued several important decisions this month, siding with the Trump administration on the deportation of migrants and giving states the ability to boot Planned Parenthood from Medicaid and restrict transgender treatments for minors. The 6-3 decisions were split along ideological lines.
