General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMother 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 nations largest family planning organization to provide their low-income patients with birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatmentservices 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 states health department to declare any doctors or clinics who provided abortion unqualified to offer other family planning services. McMasters order didnt 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 abortiona 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
Hope22
(3,101 posts)Land of the free
SheltieLover
(60,250 posts)Not included in Senate bill as somehave argued:
https://torres.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congresswoman-torres-votes-no-on-republican-continuing-resolution-that-threatens-health-care-and-fiscal-responsibility
Tickle
(3,153 posts)If someone is pro-life, Im fine with that. I dont even need to know their reasonsits their choice, and I respect it. If someone chooses to remain a virgin until marriage, again, thats their decision, and Im perfectly okay with it.
But heres what I dont 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?
Its frustrating and hypocritical, and frankly, its exhausting to see personal freedoms disregarded in the name of someone elses beliefs.
Solly Mack
(93,207 posts)in2herbs
(3,227 posts)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?