Normal view

There are new articles available, click to refresh the page.
Before yesterdayMain stream

Planned Parenthood Medicaid funding case before the Supreme Court could limit patients’ choices

31 March 2025 at 09:03
A volunteer clinic escort holds a sign outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbia, South Carolina, on Friday, March 28. (Photo by Skylar Laird/SC Daily Gazette)

A volunteer clinic escort holds a sign outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbia, South Carolina, on Friday, March 28. (Photo by Skylar Laird/SC Daily Gazette)

U.S. Supreme Court justices will hear arguments Wednesday about whether South Carolina can remove Planned Parenthood clinics from the state’s Medicaid program because they offer abortions in a case that could imperil health care options for patients with low incomes.

At the center of the lawsuit is a conflict over whether a section of the Medicaid Act gives people who use Medicaid the right to choose their providers.

“While it might be just South Carolina’s name on this court case, it will have huge impacts nationwide,” said Vicki Ringer, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic’s director of public affairs in the state. “It will allow all of these red states that have been trying so hard to close down Planned Parenthood, and it will take away medical care for so many low-income people throughout our region of the country.”

Opponents of Planned Parenthood said Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster should be able to direct Eunice Medina, the new head of the state Department of Health and Human Services, to remove the organization’s Charleston and Columbia clinics from the list of qualified Medicaid providers.

If the court rules broadly, it could allow other states to make the same move — and some already have. The case is also part of a broader strategy across the country to drain Planned Parenthood funding for all services, including reproductive health care aside from abortion. Efforts by abortion-rights opponents to do so go back decades in the United States.

Republican President Donald Trump’s administration has taken interest in the case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. The acting U.S. solicitor general will argue in favor of South Carolina health officials during a portion of the Supreme Court hearing this week.  

Lawyers for Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative advocacy firm instrumental in major anti-abortion cases that have appeared before the Supreme Court, represent South Carolina officials in the lawsuit.

“This case is about whether states have the flexibility to direct Medicaid monies to best benefit low-income women and families,” John Bursch, senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy at Alliance Defending Freedom, said in an email.

Planned Parenthood’s two South Carolina clinics offer abortion up to six weeks in compliance with state law. But staff also provide birth control, emergency contraception, prenatal and postpartum exams and STI testing and treatment, among other services. 

“Being able to deny Medicaid patients the ability to select their own qualified provider tells low-income women, especially, that once again ‘You’re not important. Your decision-making doesn’t matter. We are here to decide for you what is best,’” Ringer said.

The picture in South Carolina

McMaster’s executive order against clinics that also offer abortions — deeming them “unqualified to provide family planning services” — has been blocked by lower courts since 2018. Throughout a nearly seven-year court battle, appellate judges have repeatedly ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, and the Supreme Court has rejected requests to take up the case — until now.

“South Carolina has made it clear that we value the right to life. Therefore, taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs,” McMaster said in a Feb. 10 statement.

Nearly half — 48% — of South Carolinians surveyed in May 2024 oppose the six-week ban that’s in place, while 31% support it, and the rest were not sure or refused to answer, according to a Winthrop University poll last year. 

A Planned Parenthood clinic in South Carolina
Arguments in the case over Medicaid funding for South Carolina Planned Parenthood clinics are unfolding against a backdrop of ongoing efforts to drain funding state by state, and in Congress. (Photo by Skylar Laird/SC Daily Gazette)

Ringer said South Carolina lawmakers’ anti-abortion positions are at odds with residents’ views on the issue.

“It’s political pandering, but it’s to a population that doesn’t agree with them,” she said. “They think because they’re elected, then that means we’re an anti-abortion, so-called ‘pro-life’ state.”

Like many states, South Carolina only allows Medicaid coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest or to save a patient’s life.

Julia Walker, a spokesperson for the regional affiliate, said 10% of patients who routinely visit the South Carolina clinics for family-planning services use Medicaid.

Just 0.2% — $88,464 — of the $35 million the state spent on Medicaid-covered family-planning services went to Planned Parenthood in the 2022-2023 fiscal year, SC Daily Gazette reported. Medicaid is a reimbursement program, meaning providers foot the bill and seek at least partial reimbursement for an appointment or procedure.

A case study in Texas

ArkansasMissouri and Texas — Republican-led states — have ended some clinics’ Medicaid eligibility for reproductive health care services because they provided abortions at one time or are affiliated with Planned Parenthood.

Still, clinic doors remain open in those states, despite ongoing lawsuits and right-wing wrangling that blocked Medicaid patients.

“Let’s be clear about where Texas was even before they cut Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid,” said Melaney Linton, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which still has six locations in the greater Houston area. “Texas already was suffering some of the nation’s worst rates of maternal and infant mortality, and highest under and uninsured populations.”

Most of Houston is in Harris County, an area that has one of the highest Black maternal death rates nationwide. Black women in the county had a pregnancy-related mortality rate of 83.4 deaths per 100,000 live births from 2016 to 2020, according to a report last year.

The maternal mortality rate in Texas from 2018 to 2021 was 28.1, compared with 23.5 nationwide, according to federal data.

Black Texans are 2.5 times more likely to die from childbirth-related issues than white Texans, according to the state’s Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee.

A judge ruled in March 2021 that Texas could stop Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. Linton said the state’s actions cut off an estimated 8,000 Planned Parenthood patients.

Linton offered an example of a former patient who struggled to find a Medicaid provider who would accept her insurance and give her the birth control she was seeking. Only 34% of providers accepted Medicaid and had IUDs and birth control shots readily available for new patients, according to a University of Texas at Austin research brief.

“Politicians like to talk about how they care about women and infants and families,” Linton said. “If they did, they would do everything they can to make sure that women have more access to birth control, not less.”

Six months after Texas suspended Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funds for reproductive health care services, the state enacted a six-week abortion ban. Teen birth rates skyrocketed in Harris County and across the entire Lonestar State for the first time in 15 years, data shows.

Linton said what happens in Texas is often replicated in other parts of the country, and the same will probably hold true for the South Carolina case before the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

“Every American should be concerned about that,” she said.

Long waits and limited options

If the Supreme Court rules in South Carolina’s favor, Bursch, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney, said Medicaid patients can instead access family-planning services at publicly funded health care clinics instead of the Planned Parenthood clinics in Charleston and Columbia. The state has 53 public health clinics that offer family-planning services, 32 federally qualified health centers and 14 Title X federally-funded family-planning clinics, including Planned Parenthood’s Columbia clinic.

But public clinics are struggling financially, said Dr. Katherine Farris, the chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood in the Carolinas and the Virginias, in a news conference Friday. A patient may have to wait three months for an intrauterine device appointment at some of them, but at Planned Parenthood, she said, the patient can walk in and get an IUD insertion the same day.

Ringer and Linton also said finding a provider that accepts Medicaid and can see a new patient promptly is not so simple. 

“Doctors who at one time did take Medicaid aren’t anymore. It is a losing prospect for many providers,” Ringer said. “I’ve seen what Medicaid reimburses, and for many of the services we provide, we lose money on them. But because we are a safety-net provider, that means we provide care to people no matter what. If you can or can’t pay, we are going to take care of you.”

South Carolina and Texas are 2 of 10 states that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, Stateline reported.

When Planned Parenthood’s Texas affiliates were removed from Medicaid eligibility, Linton said the Gulf Coast staff tried to connect their Medicaid patients to other health care providers.

“Unfortunately, what our patients told us is that sometimes it took them three months or more calling around the 20 or 30 practices to find someone who would even take them. Many times they didn’t provide the birth control method that that patient had been accustomed to receiving,” Linton said.

Bursch and other Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys argue that if Planned Parenthood stopped providing abortions in South Carolina, Medicaid funding could be restored.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America attorney Catherine Peyton Humphreville said that South Carolina does allow some abortions to be provided in the state.

“At no point has anyone asserted that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic is not complying with South Carolina law,” Humphreville said.

No one has questioned the quality of care that the organization provides, they said, and the idea that Planned Parenthood can be punished for simply advocating abortion “has serious First Amendment issues.”

On Capitol Hill

Anti-abortion Republicans in Congress are pushing bills to “defund Planned Parenthood” and other abortion providers, including independent clinics, nationwide. Unlike previous sessions when Congress faced gridlock, legislation could advance this year given the GOP trifecta of power in Washington, D.C.

U.S. Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley filed legislation on Jan. 16 that would prohibit federal funding from going to organizations that provide abortions, referrals and the like, with the stated intention of cutting funds from “Planned Parenthood and abortion providers across the nation.” A 2019 rule passed by the Trump administration blocked $60 million in federal funds from flowing to the organization, Hawley said, before the rule was rescinded under Biden.

The Hyde Amendment, a provision approved annually by Congress since 1977, already prevents federal funds from covering the costs of abortion unless the pregnancy stemmed from rape or incest, or the patient could die in child birth.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson said the organization is prepared to defend itself from both state-level and national attacks.

“The most immediate focus is going to be on the Medicaid defund [bills] in Congress, and that has a direct tie to the Supreme Court case,” McGill Johnson said. “That fight looks like doing everything we can to defeat, delay, to litigate, to mitigate every effort that is trying to put sexual and reproductive health care out of reach.” 

Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health nominees confirmed

26 March 2025 at 20:58
Jayanta Bhattacharya, President Donald Trump's nominee to be director of the National Institutes of Health, speaks at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on Capitol Hill on March 5, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Jayanta Bhattacharya, President Donald Trump's nominee to be director of the National Institutes of Health, speaks at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on Capitol Hill on March 5, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

This report was updated at 7:59 p.m. EDT.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate confirmed President Donald Trump’s nominees to lead the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Senators voted 53-47 along party lines Tuesday evening to confirm Jayanta Bhattacharya as director of the NIH before voting 56-44 to approve Martin Makary as FDA commissioner.

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois as well as Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire were the only three members of their party to vote for Makary.

Shaheen said during an interview Wednesday that while she has reservations about how the Trump administration might try to change access to medication abortion, she felt Makary was qualified to lead the FDA.

“Well, I’m very concerned about what this administration might do about mifepristone,” Shaheen said. “But, I thought it was important to have someone in that role who has the scientific background and ability to run the agency.”

Hassan declined to answer questions about her vote when asked about it Wednesday afternoon by States Newsroom. Her office declined to send a written statement from the senator, offering only a response from a spokesperson. 

“The opioid epidemic has devasted communities across New Hampshire, and the FDA has made mistakes over the years that fueled this epidemic,” the spokesperson wrote in an email. “Senator Hassan voted for Dr. Makary as Commissioner of the FDA following his clear commitment to ensuring that the agency learns from its past mistakes and acts aggressively to tackle this crisis.”

Senate confirmation came just weeks after the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, or HELP, Committee voted to advance Makary and Bhattacharya.

Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., voted in committee to send Makary’s nomination to the floor, but switched to opposing his confirmation on Tuesday.

Hickenlooper said during a brief interview with States Newsroom on Wednesday that he ultimately couldn’t support Makary over his comments about medication abortion. But he said nothing significant happened between his yes vote in committee and his no vote on the floor.

“I agonized over it. I could have easily gone back and voted yes,” Hickenlooper said. “You know, at some point when I see him, I’ll apologize and say, ‘You know, that was a hard vote for me. But I really wish you would have been more demonstrative about specifically mifepristone, because I think that’s a big issue that the FDA is going to take on.’”

Hickenlooper said he spoke with his staff and his wife over Makary’s comments about access to medication abortion before he cast his no vote on the Senate floor.

“I realized that he serves at the pleasure of the president, so what the president says he’s probably going to have to do,” Hickenlooper said. “But for me, I just became more and more uncomfortable that he wouldn’t make a few statements to say that, you know, this is not something that is a medical reinterpretation for political purposes. He should have said something.”

Abortion pill

Makary will have considerable authority at the FDA to determine if access to medication abortion remains as it is now, if the agency changes prescribing guidelines, or even pulls its approval.

During his confirmation hearing in early March, Makary testified he hadn’t yet decided how he would approach that aspect of the job.

“I have no preconceived plans on mifepristone policy except to take a solid, hard look at the data and to meet with the professional career scientists who have reviewed the data at the FDA,” Makary said at the time.

Medication abortion is a two-drug regimen consisting of mifepristone and misoprostol that accounts for about 63% of all pregnancy terminations within the United States, according to research from the Guttmacher Institute.

The FDA originally approved mifepristone in 2000 and changed its prescribing guidelines in 2016 and 2021. It is currently approved for use up to 10 weeks gestation and can be prescribed via telehealth and shipped to patients.

Sixteen major medical organizations — including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine — affirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court last year that mifepristone is safe and effective.

“The scientific evidence is overwhelming: major adverse events occur in less than 0.32% of patients,” the medical organizations wrote in a 45-page brief. “The risk of death is almost non-existent.”

Goals for NIH

Bhattacharya testified during his confirmation hearing that he has five goals for the NIH, including focusing the agency’s research on chronic diseases and funding the “most innovative biomedical research agenda possible.”

“The NIH is the crown jewel of American biomedical sciences, with a long and illustrious history of supporting breakthroughs in biology and medicine,” Bhattacharya said at the time. “I have the utmost respect for the NIH scientists and staff over the decades who have contributed to this success.”

But, he said, “American biomedical sciences are at a crossroads” following the coronavirus pandemic.

Bhattacharya said during his hearing he would ensure NIH’s scientific research is replicable, that it has a culture that respects “free speech in science and scientific dissent” and that it regulates “risky research that has the possibility of causing a pandemic.”

“While the vast majority of biomedical research poses no risk of harm to research subjects or the public, the NIH must ensure that it never supports work that might cause harm.”

GOP lawmakers push to charge women with homicide for seeking abortions

11 March 2025 at 10:00

An expectant mom waits at a health clinic with her 1-year-old daughter. Republicans in multiple states are introducing bills to grant embryos and fetuses the same rights as children. (Angel Valentin/Getty Images)

As state legislative sessions grind on, conservative lawmakers have filed a new batch of bills that would grant legal rights to fetuses and fertilized embryos.

Lawmakers in at least eight states — Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas — have considered bills to go even further, to punish women who seek abortions.

Most of these states have already banned abortion. But new criminalization bills would allow women to face homicide charges for obtaining abortions. The bills would classify an embryo or fetus as an “unborn” or “preborn child” who can be a victim of homicide. Many of the bills would repeal parts of state laws that explicitly exempt women from being punished for seeking abortions.

“If we truly believe in the equal humanity of the preborn, then our laws must uphold that truth in practice,” Idaho state Sen. Brandon Shippy, a Republican, told fellow lawmakers while introducing his bill in February. The bill would allow women who seek abortions to be prosecuted under the state’s homicide laws.

“Justice requires accountability for intentional actions,” Shippy said. “To exempt any group from accountability actually undermines the law’s integrity and diminishes the value of the life being protected.”

Shippy did not answer requests for comment.

Most lawmakers, including Shippy, admit this type of legislation is a long shot. His bill is sitting in an Idaho Senate committee, although the chamber’s Republican leaders have indicated they wouldn’t move it forward. But similar bills are still pending in five other states — Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, South Carolina and Texas.

Meanwhile, conservative lawmakers in several states are introducing less punitive bills that are structured around the same legal concept: fetal personhood.

A longtime cornerstone of the anti-abortion movement, fetal personhood is the idea that a fetus, embryo or fertilized egg has the same legal rights as a newborn. If the law considers fetuses to be people, then abortion should legally be considered murder.

But experts and reproductive rights advocates have long warned of the legal chaos that could result from fetal personhood laws, with potential implications extending far beyond abortion.

“In some ways it’s a hornet’s nest,” said Rebecca Kluchin, a history professor at California State University, Sacramento, whose research has focused on fetal personhood efforts. “If you establish fetal personhood, it raises all of these questions. Do you recognize a fetus on your taxes? How do you calculate the census? What do you do about miscarriages? What about alimony? It is really messy.”

And this year, less than two months after voters approved a state constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion, a Republican legislator introduced a fetal personhood bill that would put the question on the ballot again in 2026.

If the bill is approved by two-thirds of the state legislature, the question would ask Montanans whether they support amending the state constitution to grant full rights to all people “at any stage of development, beginning at the state of fertilization or conception.”

The measure passed out of committee last month along party lines.

At a legislative hearing, Montana residents expressed concern that a personhood ballot measure would not only outlaw abortion but also eliminate access to in vitro fertilization and expose women who miscarry to possible criminal prosecution. An estimated 10% to 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, though the percentage is likely higher for all pregnancies, since many losses happen before a woman knows she’s pregnant.

Do you recognize a fetus on your taxes? How do you calculate the census? What do you do about miscarriages? What about alimony? It is really messy.

– Rebecca Kluchin, researcher and professor at California State University, Sacramento

Defenders of such legislation have downplayed its impact on IVF and insist that states have a duty to protect all life.

“For those of you who believe that a human life begins at conception and deserves legal protection, because the right to life is the foremost of unalienable rights, I don’t see how any of us could be satisfied with having a law on the books that does not actually protect human life beginning with the biological beginnings of human life, which is fertilization,” South Carolina Republican state Sen. Richard Cash told fellow legislators in February while introducing his bill.

Critics also worry criminalization bills could drive medical providers out of state and cause women to delay seeking medical care over fear of being punished for pregnancy complications. They say personhood language could even threaten individuals’ end-of-life decisions, such as “do not resuscitate” directives, which are often used by people with terminal illnesses.

Child support and tax credits

Many personhood bills are not, at face value, about banning abortion. Yet they ultimately could have the same effect. Some experts say that any attempt to weave fetal personhood language into state law could set the stage for stricter abortion laws.

A new Ohio bill would let taxpayers claim “conceived children” as dependents on their taxes. And Republican lawmakers in Kansas introduced a bill to guarantee child support payments to mothers from the moment of conception.

“These bills often look, on their face, like they’re trying to be helpful to pregnant people,” said Carmel Shachar, faculty director of the Health Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation. “But oftentimes the way they’re drafted, they’re almost impossible to take advantage of.”

For instance, Georgia’s Department of Revenue has interpreted the state’s anti-abortion law as allowing residents to claim a fetus with a detectable heartbeat as a state tax deduction. But the maximum tax savings is only about $150, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. And because it’s a deduction, rather than a refundable tax credit, it’s not available to many families with low incomes.

At least 19 states — either through state law, criminal statutes or case law — have declared fetuses at some state of pregnancy to be people, according to a 2023 report from Pregnancy Justice, a nonprofit that conducts research and advocates for the rights of pregnant people, including the right to abortion.

Fetal personhood language in state law has allowed prosecutors to press murder charges for the killing of a fetus after the killing of a pregnant woman in multiple states, including New Hampshire and Oklahoma. Laws also have allowed women in several states to be prosecuted for child endangerment for substance use while pregnant.

Anti-abortion discord

Historically, anti-abortion laws that carry criminal and civil penalties have targeted abortion care providers, such as physicians. Yet bills that would allow broader criminal prosecution of abortion are not unheard of; they’ve popped up over the years in conservative-led states, such as North Dakota.

But they aren’t widely popular, even within the anti-abortion movement.

In February, a representative from the North Dakota Catholic Conference spoke against a Republican-sponsored fetal personhood bill that would add “unborn child” to state laws relating to murder, assault and wrongful death lawsuits. The conference’s co-director told lawmakers that while his group opposes abortion, it doesn’t support punishing women who seek one. The bill made it to the House floor, where it eventually failed.

“There’s a real division in the pro-life movement,” said Kluchin, the history professor. “To some folks, abortion is murder, so anyone who commits abortion, whether a provider or pregnant person, should be accused. But most of the pro-life movement doesn’t go that way. Their thought is, how can you be compassionate if you accuse a woman of murder? That’s not going to get the general public on your side.”

Many lawmakers proposing the homicide bills acknowledge they’re unlikely to garner widespread support, even among their fellow conservatives.

“But it’s a way to say, ‘Here are my pro-life bona fides,’” Kluchin said. “I’m not sure it matters that it isn’t going to get out of committee.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

Has Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel supported Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate in Wisconsin’s April 1 Supreme Court election, has supported Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law but also says voters should decide abortion questions.

The liberal candidate, Susan Crawford, claimed Schimel “wants to bring back” the law, which bans abortion except to protect the mother’s life.

Wisconsin abortions were halted, due to uncertainty over the 1849 law, after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022, but resumed in 2023 after a judge’s ruling. 

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is deciding whether the 1849 law became valid with Roe’s reversal, said Marquette University law professor Chad Oldfather.

Schimel has campaigned supporting the law, asking “what is flawed” about it. He recalled in 2012 supporting an argument to maintain the law, to make abortion illegal if Roe were overturned.

Schimel said Feb. 18 Wisconsinites should decide “by referendum or through their elected legislature on what they want the law to say” on abortion.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Has Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel supported Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion law? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Did Wisconsin taxpayers pay $1.6 million over an abortion restriction law that was ruled unconstitutional?

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Wisconsin Watch partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. Read our methodology to learn how we check claims.

Yes.

Wisconsin taxpayers paid $1.6 million to Planned Parenthood and others who sued over a 2013 state law that was ruled an unconstitutional restriction on abortion access.

In a new attack, the Wisconsin Democratic Party blamed conservative Brad Schimel for the costs, but he didn’t become state attorney general until 2015

Schimel faces liberal Susan Crawford in the April 1 state Supreme Court election.

The law would have required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where an abortion was done. 

After Planned Parenthood sued, federal judge William Conley in Madison temporarily blocked the law, then in 2015 ruled it unconstitutional.

Schimel appealed, arguing the restriction was reasonable. A three-judge federal appeals court in Chicago upheld Conley. Schimel asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case, but it refused.

Conley ordered the $1.6 million payment.

Federal law enables plaintiffs to sue for legal fees in successful civil rights cases.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

Think you know the facts? Put your knowledge to the test. Take the Fact Brief quiz

Did Wisconsin taxpayers pay $1.6 million over an abortion restriction law that was ruled unconstitutional? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

❌
❌