Latest news with #RepublicanCongress
Forbes
4 days ago
- Politics
- 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.
Daily Mail
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Trump tears into GOP over Epstein files push
By Published: Updated: Donald Trump has put out a casting call for someone - perhaps anyone - to primary Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie - the Republican lawmaker working overtime to release the Epstein files. 'Thomas Massie, the worst Republican Congressman, and an almost guaranteed NO VOTE each and every time, is an embarrassment to Kentucky ,' Trump wrote late Monday evening on Truth Social. 'He's lazy, slow moving, and totally disingenuous - A real loser! Never has anything positive to add.' It's the president's latest salvo aimed at Massie, a libertarian-minded Republican who regularly bucks Speaker Mike Johnson and leadership to vote however he pleases - much to the chagrin of White House . Trump has vowed to campaign against the congressman as a result of his maverick tendencies, but Elon Musk has similarly promised to support the Kentuckian's re-election in 2026. The showdown between the world's richest and world's most powerful men could ignite political fireworks. Massie is generally liked among his colleagues, and Johnson has repeatedly defended him. Johnson needs to, given his slim GOP majority. Trump has a different approach - one seemingly inspired by 'The Apprentice'. 'Looking for someone good to run against this guy, someone I can endorse and vigorously campaign for!' the president wrote, soliciting a candidate to primary Massie. Trump and Massie's beef has lasted years. In 2019, the congressman opposed Trump's use of an emergency declaration to build a border wall. And in 2020 the president called for Republicans to 'throw Massie out' after the lawmaker opposed COVID relief funding. Massie went on to cruise to victory winning a whopping 81 percent of the GOP primary vote in 2020, 75 percent in 2022 and 76 percent in 2024. The president doubling-down on Massie's ouster comes at the same time the libertarian-minded rabble-rouser is leading Capitol Hill's efforts to declassify the Department of Justice's files on Epstein and his potential associates. The Republican's bill, the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), already has bipartisan support. Even Speaker Johnson wants them released. 'When the Epstein records are turned over to the public, which we must do as quickly as possible,' Speaker Mike Johnson said on Tuesday. 'Everyone was involved in that,' he later said, adding 'we must protect the innocent.' In an effort to gain more support for his measure Massie is handing out pocket-sized memos detailing exactly what it does. 'The bill directed the attorney general to publicly release all covered documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein and his associates,' the memo said, according to pictures. 'No record may be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment or political sensitivity for U.S. or foreign officials.' The only material in the files that would be withheld are portions relating to abuse or death, personal identifiable information of victims and content that would jeopardize active federal investigations or compromise national security. If the bill secures passage, the DOJ would have 30 days to post the documents online for Americans to see. 'We all deserve to know what's in the Epstein files, who's implicated, and how deep this corruption goes,' Massie said in a statement, who promised to force a vote in the U.S. House. 'If your representative won't sign the discharge petition, ask why.' Trump, meanwhile, has also moved to have Attorney General Pam Bondi unseal files relating to Epstein who, according to authorities, committed suicide in 2019 while awaiting trail on federal child [sexual] trafficking charges . Bondi announced on Tuesday that the DOJ would look to interview Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.
Washington Post
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Sleight of Trump: Forget Epstein! Get rid of ‘Commanders'!
When the going gets rough, the distracter in chief cracks open a box of oldies but goodies and cranks up the loudspeakers. Donald Trump's long relationship with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein — a friendship that he once embraced and now denies — has become enough of a problem that the president is stealing a page from his enemies on the woke left: He's demanding control over what words Americans use. The same president who stirs his fans at rallies with denunciations of the left's absurd insistence on language purity — 'pregnant people,' 'Latinx,' 'my pronouns' — insisted on Sunday that sports teams that had erased their Indian names now revert to those once-beloved monikers. The Washington Commanders must be the Redskins again, he said, and the Cleveland Guardians must reclaim the Indians name. Trump grabbed center stage this time by deciding that he might just have the leverage to force the Washington football franchise and its fans to endure a third name change in five years. In D.C. politics, all roads lead to stadiums, and just as a gung ho Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D), a vaguely reluctant D.C. Council and a rabidly pro-stadium Republican Congress head into the endgame on a $3.7 billion deal to build a sports complex on the old RFK site, along comes the leader of the free world, playing municipal mischief-maker because he needed a nicely meaningless, divisive distraction. It's clearly bothering Trump that 'nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics' who are seeking 'more, more, more' Epstein revelations, as the president posted over the weekend. He tried announcing that Coke was putting the sugar back in its soda (yay!), but that bought him only a few hours of attention. He tried touting his '6 Months of Winning.' He sued the Wall Street Journal for reporting on his alleged bawdy tribute to Epstein. Nothing quieted the Epstein furor. When in doubt, Trump loves to dive into sports controversies. This is the guy who jumped into the fray when NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick took a knee rather than honor the national anthem, called on NFL owners to tell protesting players to 'get that son of a b---- off the field right now,' and uninvited Stephen Curry to the White House because the NBA star was less than enthusiastic about making a visit. Trump's resentments against sports leagues stem from his failed efforts decades ago to buy an NFL franchise — perhaps the longest-running case of Trump yearning to join a club that simply would not have him. Now, he threatens to slam the brakes on this summer's stadium drama in the District: Change the name or 'I won't make a deal for them to build a Stadium in Washington,' the president commanded. Never mind that Trump praised the RFK site as the right solution for the Commanders less than two weeks before his latest threat. And never mind that the stadium deal involves zero role for the president. Congress and President Joe Biden already transferred the land around the old RFK Stadium to the city. Yes, Congress could theoretically try to reverse that action, and obviously Trump believes (with some reason, given the events of this year) that he can order Congress to do whatever he wants. Still, by ordinary rules, that would be a stretch. But we are not operating under ordinary rules. Trump's favorite power mode is rule by decree. There's a convoluted scenario in which the president could use appointees on the Commission on Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission to block the stadium for years. Trump clearly believes he has the people behind him. 'Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen,' he posted. 'Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them. Times are different now than they were three or four years ago,' when the Commanders and Guardians adopted their new names. 'MAKE INDIANS GREAT AGAIN (MIGA)!' He's right about Indians' preferences. As a Post poll found before the name change, 9 in 10 Indians said they were not offended by the Redskins name. Recently, though, fans seem to have resigned themselves to the cumbersome 'Commanders' name, which team owner Josh Harris said this year is 'now being embraced by our team, by our culture, by our coaching staff.' A Washington Post-Schar School poll this spring found that 50 percent of local residents — and 62 percent of Commanders fans — either 'like' or 'love' the name. A winning season and a couple of playoff victories heal many wounds. Many older fans miss the days of Chief Wahoo in Cleveland, Chief Noc-a-Homa in his outfield tepee in Atlanta and the various Indian tribute names attached to teams across the country. And there's still no consensus on what to do with such names: The Redskins and Indians are gone, but the Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks, and numerous other school and minor league team names remain. This is one of the oldest pages in the Trump playbook. He has spent half a century working to connect to the passions of sports fans. Mix in some nostalgia for the way things used to be, a dash of grudge against those who seek to inject a modern political sensibility into sports, and a sprinkle of threats and outrage — it's a surefire recipe for attention. But it's not enough to box out the Epstein scandal, which features even more quintessentially Trumpian elements (conspiracies, sex, class resentments, dark powers.) Surely, Trump knows that.
CNN
20-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Rep. Tim Burchett says Trump's request to release some Epstein grand jury documents is a ‘good start'
Republican Congressman Tim Burchett praises President Trump's request for a judge to release grand jury material in the Epstein case but says he would like the administration to release more.
CNN
20-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Rep. Tim Burchett says Trump's request to release some Epstein grand jury documents is a ‘good start'
Republican Congressman Tim Burchett praises President Trump's request for a judge to release grand jury material in the Epstein case but says he would like the administration to release more.
