This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The move is designed to allow Senate Democrats more time to parse through the myriad provisions within the massive legislative text before debate commences
Despite Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi's infamous line about needing to pass a behemoth spending bill "to find out what's in it," her fellow Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Saturday it was important to read President Trump's entire 940-page "big beautiful bill" on the Senate floor before any debate on the legislation commences.
The exercise by the clerk could take 15 hours.
"I will object to Republicans moving forward on their Big, Ugly Bill without reading it on the Senate floor," Schumer said on X. "Republicans won't tell America what's in the bill.
"So Democrats are forcing it to be read start to finish on the floor," he said. "We will be here all night if that's what it takes to read it."
As Fox News explains, Schumer's move is designed to allow Senate Democrats more time to parse through the myriad provisions within the massive legislative text. It also serves as a significant delaying tactic. Trump has said he expects the Senate to approve the bill before July 4th.
Once the bill reading is done, 20 hours of debate evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans will begin, likely early Sunday morning. Democrats are expected to use their entire 10-hour chunk, while Republicans will go far under their allotted time, Fox reported.
Then comes the "vote-a-rama" process, where lawmakers can offer an unlimited number of amendments to the bill.
The last time clerks were forced to read the entirety of a bill during the budget reconciliation process was in 2021, when Democrats held the majority in the Senate.
At the time, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., demanded that the entire, over-600-page American Rescue Act be read aloud. At the time, Schumer, who was then the Senate majority leader, objected to the reading.
Food giant Nestle said it would remove all food, drug and cosmetic (FD&C) colors from its foods by mid-2026, handing a victory to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who has called for the dyes to be phased out or banned.
Nestle said in a June 25 press release that most of its foods are already free of these dyes, but they signaled their commitment to remove them completely.
“This effort is part of the company’s ongoing commitment to provide consumers with a range of high-quality, nutritious foods and beverages that reflect the diversity and choices that they want,” the press release read.
“Consumers enjoy a wide variety of foods and beverages as part of their daily diet. They want choice and value shaped by a dynamic – and highly personal – combination of nutrition, quality, price and convenience,” Nestlé USA CEO Marty Thompson said in a statement.
The move to eliminate the dyes, which some studies have indicated are harmful to the health of children and others, shows that companies are beginning to fall in line with the MAHA, or Make America Healthy Again, initiative.
In addition to Kennedy, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary is also calling for the dyes' removal. Makary and Kennedy said in April that they will be working together to get the food industry to remove them.
For now, they are eliciting cooperation from food companies rather than trying to impose mandates.
The focus is on “petroleum-based food dyes,” which include FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Blue No. 1, and FD&C Blue No. 2.
They would like to see these dyes removed from the American food supply by the end of 2026.
“For too long, some food producers have been feeding Americans petroleum-based chemicals without their knowledge or consent,” Kennedy said in a corresponding statement.
“These poisonous compounds offer no nutritional benefit and pose real, measurable dangers to our children’s health and development. That era is coming to an end. We’re restoring gold-standard science, applying common sense, and beginning to earn back the public’s trust. And we’re doing it by working with industry to get these toxic dyes out of the foods our families eat every day,” he added.
Kraft Heinz, Conagra Brands Inc., and General Mills are also taking steps to end the production of foods using the dyes in their foods, although it doesn't seem like they will all meet the hoped-for 2026 deadline.
The end of 2027 seems like a more realistic deadline for some of them, but they all plan to make significant progress during 2026.
These food dyes, while not explicitly banned in Europe and other parts of the world, are more heavily regulated and often require warning labels when they are used in food products.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A new tariff is being announced by the White House for Canada.
President Donald Trump confirmed on Friday, "We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
The move comes after the creation of a digital services tax by Canada on American tech companies.
A report from the Washington Examiner notes that Trump confirmed he was cutting of trade negotiations with Canada and instituting a new tariff immediately.
"We have just been informed that Canada, a very difficult Country to TRADE with, including the fact that they have charged our Farmers as much as 400% Tariffs, for years, on Dairy Products, has just announced that they are putting a Digital Services Tax on our American Technology Companies, which is a direct and blatant attack on our Country," Trump said on social media.
"They are obviously copying the European Union, which has done the same thing, and is currently under discussion with us, also. Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately."
The tariff announcement will be made within a week, he said.
Trump flamboyantly has suggested annexing Canada as the 51st state, and got into a push-and-shove with America's northern neighbor earlier by announcing a 25% tariff.
Trump later adjusted those tariffs to mostly 10%.
And announcement said at the time, "President Trump will not allow our national security to be compromised by our closest trading partners, Canada and Mexico, but recognizes the unique impact that these tariffs could have on American automotive manufacturers."
The White House said Trump was using tariffs "as a tool to take decisive actions that put Americans' safety and our national security first."
He earlier had imposed tariffs to secure the border and stop the flow of dangerous drugs through Canada into the U.S.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials in the sanctuary city of Denver have decided to close down a successful anti-theft program in order to protect illegal aliens, including criminals.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley explained the program was "a highly successful anti-theft auto license plate tracking system."
But the fight against crime was not derailed because of privacy concerns, or finances.
"It was shut down because Democratic members believed that ICE could use the data to deport illegals," he explained. "In May, the council refused to renew the $666,000 contract with Flock for camera monitors around 70 Denver intersections to screen for car theft. That system resulted in the recovery of 170 stolen cars and 300 arrests. It is also credited with key evidence in the investigation of hit-and-run and murder cases."
But, he noted, "It could also be used to assist ICE, and that is all that matters."
He cited the confirmation from Councilman Kevin Flynn: "We know that it can help solve crime. But I think since maybe Jan. 20 of this year, those concerns are greatly heightened and have a new reality about them."
And Sarah Parady, another sanctuary city council member, said, "We're living in an era where just this last week, actually, an executive order came out instructing the Department of Justice and the FBI to look for reasons to prosecute local elected officials and activists who they believe are, quote, unquote, obstructing ICE enforcement. This kind of surveillance technology is a gift if you have that kind of ill intent, and the federal government has that ill intent right now."
Mayor Mike Johnston said the program had to go because of "community concerns."
Turley noted, "The police are obviously not happy but car thieves are thrilled. If this seems utterly insane, keep in mind that this was a unanimous vote of the city council."
A Fox affiliate said Flock previously was contracted to provide more than 100 license plate readers throughout Denver.
The original contract cost the city $339,450, but "the cost wasn't the main reason why council members voted no," the report said.
Instead, the issue became just who has access to the data because of Denver's sanctuary city status.
"Members worried that federal agencies would gain access to data and information that would be detrimental to immigrant communities," the report said.
The report explained, "One of Denver's southern neighbors, Douglas County Sheriff Darren Weekly, spoke out against the vote. Weekly posted to X on May 6, referencing a FOX31 story on the contract extension failure, saying, 'This morning we caught a robbery suspect from another jurisdiction using @Flock_Safety. This tech helps catch murderers, rapists, kidnappers, robbers, & ID sex offenders near schools. Meanwhile, @CityofDenver policies empower criminals and make our entire metro area less safe.'"
The station said, "FOX31 asked Flock to weigh in on the privacy concerns. The company noted first that its technology has been used to solve 'hundreds of cases' by the Denver Police Department, including a multi-million dollar jewelry heist at the Cherry Creek Shopping Center."
"The Sheriff is correct in all of these assertions. All searches conducted in the Flock LPR (license plate reader) system are saved in a permanent audit trail, which records the user, the parameters of the search, and the reason for the search (typically a case number)," Flock said. "All data collected by the LPR system — both vehicle images and metadata — are owned by the customer, in this case DPD, stored in the cloud encrypted, and purged automatically after 30 days. Denver has instituted an LPR policy that guides acceptable use and data sharing, along with additional best practices like regular audits and user training."
Senate Republicans have made concessions to those concerned about Medicaid cuts and other provisions in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," Fox News reported. This has caused division in the GOP, while worries about a narrow majority could jeopardize its final passage.
Trump is attempting to reduce the budget in his signature legislation, including targeting entitlements. However, some of those cuts include a key provision for Medicaid that is unpopular even among some Republicans.
The bill would cap the Medicaid provider tax rate, which helps states recover costs for their expenditures by taxing providers. In an effort to shore up the votes, Senate Republicans are attempting to placate those worried about cuts that would threaten rural hospitals without state funds to keep them afloat.
The Senate Finance Committee has proposed the creation of a stabilization fund worth $3 billion per year over the next five years. This would offset the cuts and could make the bill more palatable, but Republicans continue to duke it out.
Even with such a concession, it's unclear whether the reconciliation bill will pass muster. Meanwhile, Trump has urged Republicans to work together to get this passed before the Independence Day recess.
"Now that we have made PEACE abroad, we must finish the job here at home by passing 'THE GREAT, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL,' and getting the Bill to my desk, ASAP. It will be a Historic Present for THE GREAT PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, as we begin the Celebration of our Country’s 250th Birthday," Trump wrote Tuesday on his Truth Social.
"We are finally entering our Golden Age, which will bring unprecedented Safety, Security, and Prosperity for ALL of our Citizens. To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don’t go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK," Trump urged.
"Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY. NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT’S DONE. Everyone, most importantly the American People, will be much better off thanks to our work together. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
The bill faced another hurdle on Thursday as Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough continued to hack away at many key provisions, The Hill reported. Because it's a budget reconciliation, the bill has to adhere to the Byrd Rule.
Budget reconciliation requires a simple majority rather than the 60 votes usually needed for other legislation. Proposing it this way also prevents a filibuster and is meant strictly for spending issues, so that other legislation can't sneak through without proper scrutiny.
MacDonough has questioned whether several elements, including Medicaid cuts, would comply with the Byrd Rule. One of those included a prohibition on illegal immigrants, refugees, and others with "temporary protected status" from receiving Medicare eligibility.
Worst of all, MacDonough nixed a provision that would deny payments for so-called "gender-affirming care" for minors. This has made Trump frustrated with her, while some are calling for MacDonough's ouster.
There are many objections and issues that must be settled before the bill passes. Although Trump would like to see it happen before July 4, there are too many obstacles just from Republicans.
Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright said on Thursday that the Trump administration is working to support a power grid that is reaching its limit.
Fox News reported that Wright cautioned that, currently, the Trump administration is working to prevent a disaster for the country:
"In my department, we've issued four emergency orders just in the last few weeks to stop the closure of reliable plants, so we can keep the lights on and stop pushing up electricity prices," Wright said on "Mornings with Maria."
"We were on a course that was a train wreck," he added. "We're doing everything possible now to sweep out the nonsense."
Earlier in the week, the DOE issued an emergency order to address the Southeast heatwave that is putting the power grid's capabilities under intense pressure.
According to the department, the stress puts sections of. The country is at risk of blackouts, and certain areas are at maximum utilization of the electric generating units.
"We had to issue an emergency order a few days ago just to let utilities in the Southeast run their plants at full capacity so they could keep the lights on. Under the Biden laws, that's illegal," Wright claimed.
According to the energy chief, it's only because of recent changes by the Trump administration on how energy generation and usage will be prioritized that the amount of power we have has been sufficient.
"Emissions rules would have prevented them from producing all the electricity they could, and they would have had rolling brownouts," Wright said. "That's just total nonsense."
The administration has been making major changes to boost grid capability and give the DOE access to emergency orders, and analyze electricity reserves in the U.S.
In February of this year, Wright signed a secretarial order as part of his plan to “Unleash [the] Golden Era of American Energy Dominance” under Trump's orders.
The order directed the DOE to pursue Trump's plan of American energy dominance, and he outlined nine core actions that would reduce regulatory barriers, expand domestic energy production, and modernize infrastructure.
The order also made it clear that the abundance of available energy was more important to the administration than net-zero carbon emission goals, saying that national security and economic competitiveness are top administration priorities.
"America is blessed with abundant energy resources – we are the world’s top oil and gas producer and a net energy exporter for the first time in decades," the order states. "Our energy abundance is an asset, not a liability."
President Trump is suing all 15 of Maryland's federal judges, a dramatic escalation in his efforts to restrain an activist judiciary from thwarting his popular immigration plans.
For months, Trump's agenda has run into various legal roadblocks, with unelected judges ordering Trump to slow down or even reverse deportations in some instances.
This latest controversy stems from a bizarre rule fashioned by Chief Judge George L. Russell III of Maryland, an Obama appointee. The rule permits any alien to obtain an automatic injunction against their removal as long as they file a habeas petition.
The Trump administration blasted the rule as the latest effort by meddlesome judges to interfere with Trump's legitimate authority over immigration.
“This lawsuit involves yet another regrettable example of the unlawful use of equitable powers to restrain the executive,” Trump's lawyers wrote. “Specifically, defendants have instituted an avowedly automatic injunction against the federal government, issued outside the context of any particular case or controversy.”
The new rule fashions a novel "right" for aliens to obtain an injunction, contrary to the Supreme Court's holdings on injunctive relief, the Trump team said.
The administration's lawsuit named the entire bench of federal judges in Maryland, a state that has figured prominently in the Trump administration's battles over immigration. One of the judges, Paula Xinis, is an Obama appointee who has attracted attention for her role in the case of Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia, widely depicted as a "Maryland man" by sympathetic media.
"Defendants’ automatic injunction issues whether or not the alien needs or seeks emergency relief, whether or not the court has jurisdiction over the alien’s claims, and no matter how frivolous the alien’s claims may be. And it does so in the immigration context, thus intruding on core Executive Branch powers," the administration wrote.
The habeas rule encourages aliens to engage in fraudulent legal games, as they can file petitions without any proof that they are located in Maryland.
The court's rule does not allow the government "any opportunity to contest the alien’s assertion of being 'located in the District of Maryland' at the time of a habeas filing," the administration wrote.
Adding to this problem, it permits filings "on behalf of an alien, even though the filer may not know the alien’s location at the time of filing." The administration cited a specific example of an alien detained in Texas.
"The Court has applied the Amended Standing Order in a case in which the habeas petition, filed on June 6, alleged that the petitioner was detained in Maryland, but the petitioner had already arrived at a detention facility in Texas on the previous day, June 5.... Despite this undisputed fact, the Court entered and later extended the Amended Standing Order," the Department of Justice explained.
Trump's dramatic decision to sue all 15 Maryland judges reflects his determination to barrel through judicial resistance to his mass deportations, which he was specifically elected by the people to carry out.
The Supreme Court handed Trump some relief this week, ruling he can deport aliens to third countries where they have no ties.
President Trump is inching closer to picking a replacement for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who has angered Trump for months with his refusal to slash interest rates despite cooling inflation.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump may name Powell's successor earlier than usual, weakening his influence over monetary policy for the remainder of his tenure.
Powell's term ends next May, but Trump could announce his replacement as early as this summer. That would create a much longer overlap than the usual three-to-four-month transition period, the Journal noted.
Some of the replacements Trump is considering are Fed Gov. Kevin Warsh and National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, the Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has won praise as Trump's tariff messenger, is also being pitched for the role.
Trump is eager to bring the interest rate down to stimulate the economy. A lower rate would make it cheaper to borrow across the economy, and for consumers, it would mean spending less to take out a mortgage or finance a car.
"The administration is now laying the groundwork — including with the one, big, beautiful bill — to turbocharge economic, job, and investment growth, and it’s high time for monetary policy to complement this agenda and support America’s economic resurgence," White House spokesman Kush Desai told the Journal.
Trump's critics accuse him of trying to undermine the independence of the central bank, but Trump and others see Powell's monetary policy as politically motivated. Critics point out that the Fed slashed interest rates before the 2024 election, when Democrats controlled the White House, but the central bank is reluctant to do the same now.
Ahead of Powell's testimony to Congress on Tuesday, Trump urged lawmakers to pressure Powell to change course, calling him a "very dumb, hardheaded person." Trump has given Powell the nickname "Too Late," mocking his cautious approach as a policy setter.
That criticism has been echoed by Trump's loyal vice president J.D. Vance, who accused Powell of "monetary malpractice" by not cutting rates when inflation is low.
Prices barely ticked up in May, with annual inflation holding steady at 2.4%, blowing away predictions of a tariff-induced inflation disaster.
The Fed aims for an inflation target of about 2%, but Powell is taking a wait-and-see approach as the economic impact of Trump's tariffs plays out.
Powell predicts the tariff inflation will begin to appear in June's report, but he admitted inflation could come in lower than anticipated.
“We do expect tariff inflation to show up more,” Powell told the House Financial Services Committee Tuesday. "We really don’t know how much of that’s going to be passed through the consumer. We have to wait and see.”
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A Democrat member of Congress facing multiple criminal counts for impeding federal law enforcement officers, interfering with their duties and assaulting them for her violent confrontation with them at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility has pleaded not guilty.
U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver of New Jersey could face up to 17 years in prison if convicted on the charges.
She was indicted by a grand jury several weeks for "forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers at the Delaney Hall detention center in Newark last month," according to reports.
Her lawyer, Paul Fishman, claimed, in a statement, "Congresswoman McIver pleaded not guilty because she is not guilty. On May 9, she was at Delaney Hall to carry out her responsibilities as Member of Congress. She was there to inspect an ICE detention facility and to see for herself whether the Trump administration is obeying the laws and Constitution of the United States. ICE responded by creating a risky and dangerous situation, and now the Justice Department is doubling down by trying to punish the Congresswoman for doing her job."
WND reported earlier when constitutional expert Jonathan Turley explained McIver's situation is just a symptom, more or less, of a bigger agenda by the Democrats.
He explained the "new defense" being used by Democrats, from city council to Congress, is that "their official duties include obstructing the official functions of the federal government."
"The latest claimant of this license is Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ), who was charged with assaulting, resisting, and impeding law enforcement officers during a protest at Delaney Hall ICE detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. McIver is shown on video forcing her way into an ICE facility and striking and shoving agents in her path," he said.
He said officials were able to subdue the incursion quickly.
But the messaging from McIver was that she could do what for other citizens would be "trespass and assault" because of her "legislative oversight" privileges as a member of Congress.
Her comments were a reprise of what other Democrats already have demanded.
"Rep. Alexandria Ocacio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) declared 'You lay a finger on someone – on Bonnie Watson Coleman or any of the representatives that were there – you lay a finger on them, we're going to have a problem,'" the report noted.
And Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., "ominously warned the federal government that Democrats would bring down the house if it tried to charge McIver."
He said, "It's a red line. They know better than to go down that road."
He continued, "Even judges are claiming the same license. In Wisconsin, Judge Hannah Dugan has been charged with obstructing a federal arrest of an illegal immigrant who appeared in her courtroom. Dugan heard about agents waiting outside in the hallway to arrest the man and went outside to confront the agents. She told them to speak to the Chief Judge and that they needed a different warrant. The agents complied and the Chief Judge confirmed that they could conduct the arrest. In the interim, however, Dugan led the man out a non-public door and facilitated his escape."
The fault in making the "oversight" claim is that the law does not allow even members of Congress to have unauthorized access to secure federal facilities. Members of Congress can subpoena the executive branch, or get a court order, but they "do not have immunity from criminal laws in unilaterally forcing their way into any federal office or agency," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a stunning decision that assists the pro-life cause across America, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood's demand that a state be ordered to consider it a "qualified provider" and thus eligible for Medicaid program cash.
The justices ruled 6-3 in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that South Carolina is allowed to legally block the leading player in America's abortion industry from demanding payment through the Medicaid program.
Seven years ago, Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed an executive action telling the state's Department of Health and Human Services to take the abortion provider off of the state's Medicaid provider list.
His explanation was that funding to abortionists, even if not used directly for abortions, indirectly funded abortions and such public funding was banned by state law.
He said in a recent statement, "This case is about protecting the sanctity of life and preserving South Carolina's right to govern itself in a way that reflects the values of its people."
Justice Neal Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion of the court, and was joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
Ketanji Jackson, one of the three pro-abortion activists on the court, wrote a dissent that would have insisted taxpayers in the state revert to paying their cash to the abortionists, and was joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
McMaster had said, "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. Just as I was in 2018, I am confident in our authority to terminate funding for Planned Parenthood, and I trust that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree."
A spokesperson for the abortion company's South Carolina's two sites claimed, "In just under two years, we've already heard countless stories of distress, bodily harm, persecution, and even death, from patients whose care was delayed or denied due to these bans. If anti-abortion lawmakers are allowed to act unchecked, they will revoke our access to this care altogether—with no exceptions. We must continue to take them to task—in the legislature, in the courts, and in our communities."
Priests for Life National Director Frank Pavone said, "This is one of the unfolding victories of the 2022 Dobbs decision and rightly shows deference to the states. People should not have the right to bar states from disqualifying abortion providers from receiving taxpayer money."
The court ruling concluded that Medicaid laws do not give individuals the right to bring federal lawsuits against states over this issue.
A statement from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life research arm, said, "South Carolina's victory marks a meaningful step forward in the fight to stop forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry. It offers a glimpse of what can be achieved nationwide with congressional passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, which would defund big abortion businesses in Medicaid through the budget reconciliation process. Although the Hyde Amendment and similar policies in the majority of states prevent taxpayer dollars from being spent on most abortions, abortion businesses – like Planned Parenthood – still receive hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers each year, freeing them to spend donations on abortion on demand, partisan politics and litigation instead of health care."
The ruling found the state's decision to exclude the abortionists from Medicaid's list of "any qualified provider," was allowed in this case as the plaintiff's lacked any legal grounds for challenging it.
Mat Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said, "The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully ruled that states can defund abortion. It makes no sense to require states to fund an organization that kills children. Congress did not create a right for individuals to have states pay for their abortions. Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund abortion or subsidize practices that kill children and harm women."
Liberty Counsel's briefs noted, "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."
The corporation boasts of doing more than 400,000 abortions a year, collecting nearly $800 million from U.S. taxpayers.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Director of Legal Affairs Katie Daniel said, "By rejecting Planned Parenthood's lawfare, the Court not only saves countless unborn babies from a violent death and their mothers from dangerously shoddy 'care,' it also protects Medicaid from exposure to thousands of lawsuits from unqualified providers that would jeopardize the entire program. Pro-life Republican leaders are eliminating government waste and prioritizing Medicaid for those who need it most – women, children, the poor, people with disabilities. Planned Parenthood was rightly disqualified. Multi-billion-dollar abortion businesses are not entitled to an unending money grab that forces taxpayers to fund America's #1 cause of death: abortion."
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said, "Planned Parenthood's taxpayer-funded gravy train is swiftly coming to an end. Its days of posing as a 'trusted health care provider' are over as the truth is exposed – most recently, by revelations of botched procedures, open sewage and other horrifying conditions at their facilities across America and the tragic death of yet another young woman following a late-term abortion. The profit-driven abortion industry isn't merely uninterested in fixing these systemic issues, the Planned Parenthood organization actually forbids donor funds from being spent on quality health care, funneling millions into political activism and litigation instead. Women, children and families deserve so much better – and with community health centers that offer comprehensive care outnumbering Planned Parenthoods 15 to one, women have real choices."
The ruling found the state's decision to exclude the abortionists from Medicaid's list of "any qualified provider," was allowed in this case as the plaintiff's lacked any legal grounds for challenging it.
Mat Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said, "The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully ruled that states can defund abortion. It makes no sense to require states to fund an organization that kills children. Congress did not create a right for individuals to have states pay for their abortions. Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund abortion or subsidize practices that kill children and harm women."
Liberty Counsel's briefs noted, "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."
The corporation was "implicated in unethical and illegal profiteering of aborted baby body parts revealed through undercover videos by undercover journalists Sandra Merritt and David Daleiden. This 'shadowy proliferation' of fetal tissue trafficking gives states like South Carolina a compelling interest to deem the abortion giant unqualified and keep Medicaid funds from subsidizing these 'abhorrent' practices," the statement said.
The court said federal law "does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights" in such cases.
"Congress sometimes allows private enforcement through §1983, which authorizes suits against state actors who deprive individuals of federal 'rights, privileges, or immunities.' But statutes create individual rights only in 'atypical case[s].' … To prove an enforceable right, plaintiffs must show the statute 'clear[ly] and unambiguous[ly]' uses 'rights-creating terms' with 'an unmistakable focus' on individuals."
It continued, "Congress may not wish to authorize private suits."
And, "Private enforcement requires showing States 'voluntarily and knowingly' consented to private suits, meaning Congress must 'clearly' and 'unambiguously' alert States that private enforcement was a funding condition."