Justices at high court hear case on whether or not states can refuse to allocate funds to Planned Parenthood
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an important case that could have a dramatic impact on the amount of taxpayer funding going to abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.
The case comes out of the state of South Carolina. According to Liberty Counsel's website:
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and one of its Medicaid clients challenged Governor Henry McMaster’s 2018 executive order claiming it violated federal law under the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” language. The law’s “any qualified provider” language grants beneficiaries the right to choose their provider from a pool of providers the state has deemed qualified.
The website goes on to say:
Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief in the case noting the law’s language allows for states to disqualify providers that engage in unethical and illegal practices, in which Planned Parenthood has been credibly implicated in these types of practices.The Christian legal organization notes: "The decision could either allow states to defund and weaken the abortion industry, or require pro-life states to keep subsidizing abortion access by having to direct Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood." It reported:
The Justices focused their questions largely around whether federal laws need to use certain “magic words” to explicitly acknowledge an individual right, and whether the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision gives beneficiaries a mechanism to sue a state when their choice of doctor is denied.Alliance Defending Freedom represented a South Carolina state agency, and in a post on one of its websites prior to the hearing, it included a quote from Senior Counsel John Bursch, who stated: "State officials should be free to determine that Planned Parenthood—a multi-billion-dollar activist organization—is not a real healthcare provider and is not qualified to receive taxpayer funding through Medicaid.”
Alabama can’t prosecute people and groups who help women travel across state lines to end a pregnancy, a federal judge ruled Monday in a case that tested how far states can go to prevent residents from getting an abortion.
The decision came in response to Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall’s threat to use criminal conspiracy laws to stop people from providing logistical or other help for out-of-state abortions.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson said that would violate a person's right to travel and the First Amendment.
The article provided a historical perspective, stating:
Before Alabama’s strict abortion ban kicked in two years ago, the Yellowhammer Fund offered financial and logistical assistance to women seeking abortions both in Alabama and, if necessary, out of state.
The nonprofit group had prepared for the ban by developing ties with clinics in states where abortion was likely to remain legal and budgeting for more staff.
It went on to say:
But those plans were canceled after the attorney general warned − including in an August 2022 interview − “if someone was promoting themselves out as a funder of abortion out of state, then that is potentially criminally actionable for us.”
Yellowhammer was one of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit against the Attorney General filed in federal court.
Man who has used signs to communicate Biblical messages about gender facing legal action for social media post, X assisting in his defense
At the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Dallas a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to sit down with Chris Elston, a Canadian man who is using signage that he carries into strategic locations to present a Biblically-inspired message about gender. He has come to be known as "Billboard Chris."
A recent Christian Post article relates that an online post has garnered legal action in Australia, stating:
The case concerns a Canadian man, Chris Elston, also known as Billboard Chris, who in February 2024 wrote a post on X that was critical of the World Health Organization's decision to appoint Australian trans activist Teddy Cook as an “expert” on trans issues.
The post also included a link to a graphically descriptive article at the Daily Mail website. The article goes on to say:
Cook took exception to Elston apparently questioning his credentials to work for the WHO, and submitted a complaint to Australia’s e-Safety Commissioner.
The commissioner demanded that X remove the post, which they initially refused to do. However, following a formal order, X geo-blocked the post, making it unavailable to view in Australia.
The Post article opened with these words:
Elon Musk’s personal crusade against the “woke mind virus” is a global one and the latest frontline is to be found in Australia, where his company X is joining in a case against the country’s “e-Safety Commissioner.”
It also reported:
Elston, together with Musk’s X, the Australian Human Rights Law Alliance, and ADF International, are appealing the decision, saying it breaches Elston’s right to free expression.Elston had been "threatened with arrest," and a fine of over 500 U.S. dollars was levied against him, according to ADF International. The article says that Elston was "forcibly moved in Brisbane by police after conducting what it says were consensual conversations with members of the Australian public about trans issues."
“No child has ever been born in the wrong body. As a father, I have grave concerns about the impact of harmful gender ideology on our children’s well-being.
“This reality is being increasingly recognized around the world, with government after government ordering a review into the use of toxic puberty blockers. This is a serious issue with real world implications for families across the globe and we need to be able to discuss it."
