Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump Wants To ‘Defund’ Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court Will Hear a Case Aimed at That.

The case concerns a South Carolina policy that would prevent people from using Medicaid — which predominantly insures people of color — at the nation’s largest family planning provider.

Trump Wants To ‘Defund’ Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court Will Hear a Case Aimed at That.

Medicaid is the most common source of insurance for patients who seek health care at Planned Parenthood clinics, which provide services such as testing for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screenings and birth control services.

AARON M. SPRECHER/AP IMAGES

In its first abortion case since President Donald Trump’s reelection, the Supreme Court will hear arguments this month about whether states can bar Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds — which could further the administration’s goal of “defunding” the nation’s largest family planning provider.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic concerns an order from South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, who in 2018 said any clinic that provided abortions could not participate in the state’s Medicaid program. Lower courts have blocked McMaster’s order from taking effect. But if implemented, the state policy could seriously undercut South Carolinians’ access to reproductive health care and create a template for other states to emulate.


Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income Americans disproportionately serves Black and Latinx people. It does not cover abortions in most states, including in South Carolina, where just under 60 percent of beneficiaries are not White. Federal law dictates that people who receive Medicaid — more than a million in South Carolina, and about 400,000 of whom are women between the ages of 15 and 44 — are allowed to use it at any qualified health care provider that accepts the insurance plan.

Cutting Planned Parenthood from Medicaid could have big impacts: Planned Parenthood clinics provide other forms of medical care, such as testing for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screenings and birth control services, all of which Medicaid is supposed to cover. Medicaid is the most common source of insurance for patients who seek health care at Planned Parenthood clinics. Without Medicaid reimbursement, the clinics — which operate with thin financial margins — would likely either have to turn patients away or charge them.

The oral arguments — in which the federal government has joined the case as a friend of the court to argue alongside the state in defense of the policy — in this case come at a complex moment for the future of reproductive health care more broadly. Backed by anti-abortion activists, Trump has pushed an agenda of ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the vast majority of which comes from Medicaid.

Abortion opponents have called this policy “defunding,” even though it would not affect private money given to Planned Parenthood, and it would cut revenue sources that don’t actually pay for abortion. Still, it could inject new financial instability for Planned Parenthood and other similar health centers.

A report last month from The Wall Street Journal suggested that the Trump administration is considering freezing all funding to Title X, another federal program that supports family planning clinics services for low-income people. Planned Parenthood is the largest single Title X provider.

With the exception of medical emergencies, health facilities aren’t required to accept Medicaid, meaning that people covered through the program can struggle to find health care providers who take their insurance.

Research from George Washington University suggests that almost 40 percent of all counties in South Carolina are “contraceptive deserts” where there aren’t enough providers to serve all people in need.

But the impact would likely extend even beyond areas where reproductive health care is hard to attain, denying people in all parts of the country the right to choose who provides an intimate, essential form of health care, said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor emerita of health law and policy at George Washington University who co-authored a brief arguing that the Supreme Court should reject South Carolina’s policy.

“I don’t care if you’re in rural South Carolina or downtown St. Louis, Missouri. There are certain services where if it’s a good quality provider, and this is the provider you prefer, it’s very important to be able to see a trusted provider,” she said.

Public health professionals have warned that upholding South Carolina’s policy could open the door to states discriminating against other qualified medical providers, deciding arbitrarily that patients cannot use their Medicaid coverage at certain health clinics. That could include refusing to let Medicaid cover a certain home care provider because of its stance on unionization, Rosenbaum suggested, or because of employees participating in protests.

And it could influence other states with anti-abortion government leaders. Already, three other states — Arkansas, Missouri and Texas — are enforcing laws that disqualify Planned Parenthood from participating in Medicaid, even though abortion is illegal in two of those.

“If the Supreme Court decides that Medicaid recipients cannot fight back in court when the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services prevents them from freely choosing their health care provider, the effects could ripple far beyond South Carolina,” said Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy for the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights but whose research is cited across the political spectrum.

A 2015 analysis from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that eliminating all federal funding for Planned Parenthood would mean fewer Americans receiving family planning care — and more people having unplanned pregnancies — even if other health care providers tried to step in. The government analysis, conducted before the overturning of Roe v. Wade allowed states to ban abortion, found that eliminating federal funding would increase federal spending by $130 million over nine years.

“If you pull back Medicaid funding… then they become nonviable, which is the whole point,” Rosenbaum said. “The public health effects of all this are horrendous.”

Trump wants to ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court will hear a case aimed at that. was originally published by the 19th and is shared with permission.

Shefali Luthra is a Reproductive Health Reporter for the 19th.

Read More

Ed Martin’s Plan to Shame Trump's Enemies Threatens the Rule of Law

The Department of Justice logo is displayed.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Ed Martin’s Plan to Shame Trump's Enemies Threatens the Rule of Law

For a long time, scholars, commentators, and officials have debated the efficacy of shame as a form of punishment. Opinion has been divided over the efficacy and appropriateness of using it as a response to a criminal conviction.

But nowhere did anyone ever suggest that shaming someone would be an acceptable reason to prosecute them. Until now.

Keep ReadingShow less
After Decades of Taking Others’ Freedom, Prosecutors Cry Foul Over Fixing Their Mistakes

A small Lady Justice statue.

Getty Images, MarianVejcik

After Decades of Taking Others’ Freedom, Prosecutors Cry Foul Over Fixing Their Mistakes

Louisiana District Attorneys Association (LDAA), a special interest lobbying group, stands in the way of justice in Louisiana. On May 21, the LDAA successfully blocked a legislative pathway for hundreds of people to receive fair constitutional trials. Louisiana is the only state in the United States of America where people are serving sentences in prison, some for life, where a jury did not agree on whether they were guilty.

For nearly 1,000 people in Louisiana prisons, a jury could have found them guilty but instead returned a verdict that would be called a “hung jury” if the case had been tried in Alabama, Texas, New York, California, Mississippi, and other states.

Keep ReadingShow less
Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: Attacks on Lawyers and the Legal Profession

Someone tipping the scales of justice.

Getty Images, sommart

Impact of Trump’s Executive Actions: Attacks on Lawyers and the Legal Profession

Project Overview

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy explaining in practical terms what the administration’s executive orders and other executive actions mean for all of us. Each of these actions springs from the pages of Project 2025, the administration's 900-page playbook that serves as the foundation for these measures. The Project 2025 agenda should concern all of us, as it tracks strategies adopted by countries such as Hungary, that have eroded democratic norms and have adopted authoritarian approaches to governing.

Project 2025’s stated intent to move quickly to “dismantle” the federal government will strip the public of important protections against excessive presidential power and provide big corporations with enormous opportunities to profit by preying on America's households.

Keep ReadingShow less
Child Victims of Crime Are Not Heard

Shadow of a boy

Getty Images/mrs

Child Victims of Crime Are Not Heard

Justice is not swift for anyone, and even less so for children. In Mexico, as in many other countries, children who are victims of crime must endure not only the pain of what they have lived through, but also the institutional delays that, instead of protecting them, expose them to new forms of harm. If we truly acted with the urgency that child protection demands, why doesn’t the justice system respond with the same urgency?

Since January, a seven-year-old girl in Mexico, a survivor of sexual violence at her school, has been waiting for a federal judge to resolve an amparo, a constitutional appeal she filed requesting the right to participate in the criminal case against her aggressor in a protected and adapted manner. According to the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Mexico’s highest court), amparos must be used as urgent remedies when fundamental rights are at imminent risk. And yet, four months have passed with no resolution.

Keep ReadingShow less