Listen to the article
A federal appeals court will hear arguments Wednesday regarding the legality of a spending law that eliminated Medicaid reimbursements for Planned Parenthood, a measure that has sparked intense legal battles and operational challenges for healthcare providers nationwide.
The legislation, part of President Donald Trump’s tax and spending cut bill passed in July, specifically targets organizations that provide abortions and receive more than $800,000 annually in Medicaid reimbursements. While Planned Parenthood contends the law violates constitutional principles, anti-abortion advocates have praised the measure as a significant policy achievement.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston previously ruled in September that the law could take effect while a lower court examines Planned Parenthood’s claims. A three-judge panel from the appeals court will preside over Wednesday’s hearing to determine whether the measure can remain in force during ongoing litigation.
According to a report released by Planned Parenthood ahead of the hearing, the organization incurred costs of $45 million in September alone as clinics nationwide covered treatment for Medicaid patients from their own resources—a financial burden the organization describes as unsustainable in the long term.
The impact extends far beyond abortion services. Nearly half of Planned Parenthood’s patients rely on Medicaid for healthcare services unrelated to abortion, which was already excluded from federal funding. These services include STI testing, contraception, cancer screenings, and primary care.
In response to the law, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates in Massachusetts and Utah, along with a major medical provider in Maine, filed lawsuits against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in July. The Maine provider has been forced to suspend primary care services while its legal challenge proceeds.
Seven states—California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Washington—have stepped in to allocate state funds to compensate for the lost federal Medicaid reimbursements. However, these state contributions cover only approximately $200 million of the $700 million that Planned Parenthood spends annually on Medicaid patients.
The financial shortfall has already forced significant operational changes. Some clinics now require Medicaid patients to pay out of pocket, while others have closed entirely. Since July, 20 Planned Parenthood-affiliated clinics have shuttered, contributing to a total of 50 closures since the beginning of Trump’s second term.
“The consequence is for patients who are going to be forced to make impossible choices between essential services,” Planned Parenthood President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson told The Associated Press.
The debate fundamentally revolves around abortion services, though they constitute a small percentage of Planned Parenthood’s overall healthcare provision. Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee, defended the legislation, arguing that even indirect funding supports abortion providers.
“To be forced to pay for that is just very objectionable,” Tobias stated, suggesting that Planned Parenthood could continue providing medical care to vulnerable populations if it ceased offering abortion services.
Johnson has maintained the organization’s commitment to providing abortion services, stating: “The government should not play a role in determining any pregnancy outcomes.”
According to Planned Parenthood’s annual report, abortions represent only 4% of all medical services provided in 2024. Testing for sexually transmitted infections and contraception services comprise approximately 80% of their work, with the remaining 15% dedicated to cancer screenings, primary care, and behavioral health services.
Jenna Tosh, CEO of Planned Parenthood California Central Coast, emphasized that the Medicaid cuts threaten both abortion and non-abortion medical care. Approximately 70% of patients at her organization rely on Medicaid for healthcare coverage.
“Many of our patients, we are their primary provider of health care,” Tosh explained. “You really start pulling at the thread of the entire health care safety net for the most vulnerable people.”
The outcome of Wednesday’s hearing could significantly impact access to healthcare services for millions of low-income Americans who depend on Planned Parenthood for primary care. The case represents a critical juncture in the ongoing national debate over reproductive rights, healthcare funding, and the role of government in women’s health services.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
As a healthcare provider, I’m worried about the potential impacts of this law on patient access and the financial viability of Planned Parenthood clinics. I hope the court considers the real-world consequences carefully.
This is a complex and highly politicized issue. I encourage everyone to look at the facts and legal arguments objectively before forming their opinions on the merits of this case.
It’s concerning to hear about the $45 million in costs Planned Parenthood has incurred due to this law. Cutting Medicaid funding for essential healthcare providers like this seems like it could create major access issues for vulnerable populations.
You’re right, this law has the potential to severely restrict healthcare access, especially for low-income individuals and families. I hope the court takes the real-world impacts into account when making their decision.
While I respect the views of those who oppose abortion, I’m concerned that this law could have unintended consequences that harm women’s healthcare more broadly. I’ll be closely watching the court’s decision on this case.
As an advocate for reproductive rights, I’m closely following this case. While I understand the perspective of anti-abortion groups, I’m concerned that this measure could infringe on constitutional principles and set a dangerous precedent.
I share your concerns. It will be interesting to see how the court balances the competing interests and constitutional issues at stake in this case.
This is an important case that will have significant implications for healthcare access and reproductive rights in the US. I’m curious to see how the court rules on the legality of this measure and its potential impact on Planned Parenthood’s operations.