News
Supreme Court Greenlights Republican Crusade to Defund Planned Parenthood
On Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered a decision that could be a death knell for Planned Parenthood health centers across the nation.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court’s conservative supermajority decided that the federal Medicaid Act does not give an individual the right to bring a civil rights lawsuit challenging the termination of a specific Medicaid provider from that state’s network.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is its latest assault on reproductive health care. The case also marks another victory for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian conservative litigation shop behind the Dobbs decision, in which the high court reversed Roe v. Wade and ended the federal right to an abortion. (ADF lawyers represented the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services in Medina.)
Supporters of Planned Parenthood have long feared that the case could pave the way for states across the country to kick the largest provider of women’s health care nationwide out of their Medicaid networks too. Now, that seems like a distinct possibility.
Seven years ago — before Roe v. Wade was overturned, before President Donald Trump was elected again, and before a Republican-controlled Congress was poised to approve the largest-ever cuts to federal funding for Planned Parenthood — South Carolina Republican Gov. Henry McMaster sought to kick the organization out of his state’s Medicaid network.
There are two Planned Parenthood health centers in South Carolina; together they serve an estimated 6,000 patients a year. But back in 2018, McMaster issued an executive order directing South Carolina’s Medicaid agency to look for ways to keep Planned Parenthood — which provides birth control, STI testing, and cancer screenings, in addition to abortion services — from receiving any public money at all. “Taxpayer dollars must not directly or indirectly subsidize abortion providers,” he said at the time.
Federal law already bars Medicaid money from going toward abortion care except in the most limited set of circumstances, and abortion is now banned in South Carolina at 6 weeks gestation with very few exceptions, but McMaster continued his crusade — even after court after court ruled against him.
Back in 2018, a South Carolina woman — a Medicaid recipient who received her health care at a Planned Parenthood center — sued, saying that McMaster’s order deprived her of her right to choose her own health care provider, a right that was guaranteed by the federal Medicaid Act. Two years later, in 2020, the woman, Julie Edwards, won and the fight McMaster picked with Planned Parenthood looked to be over.
But, two years after that, a new decision from the Supreme Court revived the case, and on Thursday, the Court’s majority ruled against Planned Parenthood.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, “Today’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people.” She was joined in her opinion by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
“At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them,” Jackson added. “And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians — and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country — of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’”
Thursday’s loss before the Supreme Court was a first for the plaintiffs. Susanna Birdsong, the general counsel and vice president of compliance for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, tells Rolling Stone that prior to this decision, “We won at every stage of the litigation.” Most recently, the Fourth Circuit re-examined the case and reached its original conclusion: that the federal Medicaid act allows patients to choose their provider — any qualified provider — and the state of South Carolina couldn’t arbitrarily tell a person like Julie Edwards that she cannot choose an otherwise qualified provider.
Now, Birdsong says that Planned Parenthood is “looking at all of our options” — legally and otherwise — “to continue to fight for our patients.”
“While I’m deeply disappointed that the court ruled the way that they did — and I think wrongly decided that the Medicaid Act does not confer this right… There are other potential ways to challenge what the state is trying to do here,” Birdsong adds.
Condemnation of the decision, meanwhile, was swift and loud from reproductive rights advocates across the country.
Destiny Lopez, CEO of the Guttmacher Foundation, a reproductive policy institute, called the decision “a grave injustice.”
“At a time when health care is already costly and difficult to access, stripping patients of their right to high-quality, affordable health care at the provider of their choosing is a dangerous violation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom,” Lopez added, citing Guttmacher data that showed that one in three patients who sought out birth control in 2020 received it from a Planned Parenthood.
“Today’s decision favors extremists who’d rather let someone die of cancer than let them get a cancer screening at Planned Parenthood,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. “The decision will put fuel on the fire of the multi-year campaign to deny Medicaid patients their right to see Planned Parenthood providers for contraceptives, STI testing, and other non-abortion services. Right now, Congress is seeking to replicate South Carolina’s ban nationwide, putting politics above patients in making health care decisions.”
Planned Parenthood has previously estimated that if South Carolina won the case, nearly 200 of their health centers in 24 states across the country would be threatened with closure, with the vast majority — 90 percent — of those closures to occur in states where abortion is legal.
The state of Texas has already removed Planned Parenthood from both its publicly-funded family planning program and its Medicaid network. The results have been stark. According to a report released earlier this month, the percentage of enrollees accessing care dropped from 90 percent in 2011 to 59 percent in 2023. Over the same 12-year period, the use of birth control accessed through the program declined by 56 percent.
News
Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP
The Supreme Court
Win McNamee/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Win McNamee/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits.
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.”
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced.
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor said that if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.”
Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow. Earlier last month the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map. California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district. Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
News
Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.
News
US says Kuwait accidentally shot down 3 American jets
The U.S. and Israel have been conducting strikes against targets in Iran since Saturday morning, with the aim of toppling Tehran’s clerical regime. Iran has fired back, with retaliatory assaults featuring missiles and drones targeting several Gulf countries and American bases in the Middle East.
“All six aircrew ejected safely, have been safely recovered, and are in stable condition. Kuwait has acknowledged this incident, and we are grateful for the efforts of the Kuwaiti defense forces and their support in this ongoing operation,” Central Command said.
“The cause of the incident is under investigation. Additional information will be released as it becomes available,” it added.
In a separate statement later Monday, Central Command said that American forces had been killed during combat since the strikes began.
“As of 7:30 am ET, March 2, four U.S. service members have been killed in action. The fourth service member, who was seriously wounded during Iran’s initial attacks, eventually succumbed to their injuries,” it said.
Major combat operations continue and our response effort is ongoing. The identities of the fallen are being withheld until 24 hours after next of kin notification,” Central Command added.
This story has been updated.
-
World5 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts5 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO5 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
News1 week agoWorld reacts as US top court limits Trump’s tariff powers