Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Dennis Donovan

(27,405 posts)
Sat Dec 21, 2024, 03:17 PM Saturday

Mother Jones: The Supreme Court's Christmas Gift to Religious-Right Lawyers

Mother Jones - The Supreme Court’s Christmas Gift to Religious-Right Lawyers

The justices agreed to weigh in on defunding Planned Parenthood at the request of a powerful conservative Christian legal group.

Madison Pauly
51 minutes ago

The Supreme Court agreed last week to hear a case that could pave the way for states to kick Planned Parenthood clinics and affiliated doctors out of their Medicaid programs. The case threatens the ability of the nation’s largest family planning organization to provide their low-income patients with birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment—services that have nothing to do with abortion.

Back in June, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the religious-right legal group behind the fall of Roe v. Wade, legal attacks on the abortion pill, and some of the most important anti-LGBTQ laws and Supreme Court cases of recent memory, filed the request that the nine justices hear this case.

They asked on behalf of their client, the South Carolina health department. That is part of a pattern: ADF has increasingly represented state governments in efforts to defend abortion bans and anti-trans laws. My colleague Pema Levy reported earlier this year that this work has raised ethical questions about how a religious organization that brings in over $100 million annually from mostly undisclosed donors can represent the public in court while also advancing a religious agenda.

The case, known as Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, dates back to the summer of 2018, when South Carolina Republican Gov. Henry McMaster ordered his state’s health department to declare any doctors or clinics who provided abortion “unqualified” to offer other family planning services. McMaster’s order didn’t have anything to do with the doctors’ resumes or the quality of their healthcare. Instead it was calculated to punish Planned Parenthood financially by making it ineligible to receive Medicaid reimbursements for the non-abortion services that, contrary to popular misconception, make up the vast majority of its work. Medicaid, which provides health coverage for people who are low-income, already does not cover abortion—a prohibition that has been federal law for decades. But “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,” McMaster reasoned in his executive order.

Politically, the executive order was a way for McMaster to “take an anti-abortion stand,” per the resulting headlines. But practically, it hurt South Carolinian women on Medicaid who relied on their local Planned Parenthood clinic for everyday reproductive healthcare.

/snip
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mother Jones: The Supreme Court's Christmas Gift to Religious-Right Lawyers (Original Post) Dennis Donovan Saturday OP
Erasing women and killing them by removing preventative healthcare. Hope22 Saturday #1
Consistent with US Rep Torres' contention that breast & cervicsl cancer funding was CUT SheltieLover Saturday #2
I just don't understand, so bear with me. Tickle Saturday #3
K&R Solly Mack Saturday #4
PPP is a 501(c)(3). If their charity status was approved knowing that their charity would in2herbs Saturday #5

Tickle

(3,153 posts)
3. I just don't understand, so bear with me.
Sat Dec 21, 2024, 03:29 PM
Saturday

If someone is “pro-life,” I’m fine with that. I don’t even need to know their reasons—it’s their choice, and I respect it. If someone chooses to remain a virgin until marriage, again, that’s their decision, and I’m perfectly okay with it.

But here’s what I don’t get: why is it that their choices are sacred and untouchable, yet they feel entitled to stand in the way of mine? Why do they care if I choose to have sex, take precautions, or even get pregnant and decide to wait longer to have children? How is it fair that they can live their lives as they see fit, but feel the need to control mine?

It’s frustrating and hypocritical, and frankly, it’s exhausting to see personal freedoms disregarded in the name of someone else’s beliefs.

in2herbs

(3,227 posts)
5. PPP is a 501(c)(3). If their charity status was approved knowing that their charity would
Sat Dec 21, 2024, 04:40 PM
Saturday

provide health care why isn't the proper argument to stop abortions being brought against the IRS instead of PPP? PPP shouldn't have to defend itself against these people when it is in compliance with IRS 501(c)(3) rules. These people should be attacking the IRS!

Has the USSC ever included the IRS authority in their decisions?



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Mother Jones: The Supreme...