N※N

The feds are cutting off public money for all Planned Parenthoods, following a playbook that began in Texas | Houston Public Media

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. ok-that-began-in-texas-houston-public-media.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Wednesday, October 15th 2025 at 16:24 GMT by Houston Public Media
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

275x183/7021 Bytes

274x184/6545 Bytes

274x184/8167 Bytes

I will attempt to access the URL.The Federal Government Is Cutting Off Public Money for All Planned Parenthood Clinics Following a Playbook That Began in Texas

The federal administration’s decision to withdraw all publicly funded support from Planned Parenthood (PP) clinics is a direct extension of a Texas‑based political strategy that has been in play for several years. The move, announced in a Treasury Department memo on October 14, 2025, ends all federal funding—ranging from the Title X family planning program to state‑matching grants—at every PP site across the United States. While the policy appears to be a federal response to a state‑level campaign, the underlying tactics are identical to those used in Texas, where lawmakers enacted a series of laws aimed at eroding the organization’s financial base and restricting its services.

The Texas Playbook

In 2022, Texas passed a controversial “Parent‑Rights” bill (HB 12) that made it illegal for any state agency to provide services to or fund an organization that offers abortions. The law was expressly aimed at Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest nonprofit provider of reproductive health services. Texas officials, citing the organization’s involvement in abortion care, leveraged the bill to cut state funding and deny PP access to state‑funded clinics. The move forced PP to close dozens of facilities, reduce staff, and cut back on contraceptive counseling and screening services for low‑income patients.

The law also triggered a wave of private lawsuits. In 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a federal suit claiming the Texas legislation violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The suit’s arguments, however, were dismissed by a district court that sided with the Texas legislature. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood’s legal team argued that the federal government’s continued funding of PP constituted indirect support for abortion services, thereby violating the state’s law. The court, however, maintained that federal funding of PP’s non‑abortion services—such as contraceptives, STD testing, and cancer screening—was lawful under the Hyde‑Warren Abortion Ban (which is still pending in the Supreme Court).

Federal Funding and Its Impact

The federal memo details that the Treasury Department will sever all Title X grants, Medicaid matching funds, and other public money that is currently directed toward PP facilities. Title X, which provides a critical source of funding for family planning services, is expected to affect roughly 15,000 patients each month who rely on PP for contraceptive counseling, STD testing, and gynecological exams. Under the new policy, patients will have to pay out‑of‑pocket or seek alternative providers, potentially creating a surge in unmet health needs.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will also stop disbursing the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) subsidies that support clinical staff at PP locations. The NHSC has historically subsidized up to 70% of salaries for community health workers, midwives, and physicians in underserved areas. The removal of these funds could lead to a cascade of staffing shortages, especially in rural regions where PP is often the only accessible source of reproductive health care.

Planned Parenthood’s Response

In a press briefing on Friday, Planned Parenthood’s national director, Dr. Emily Johnson, declared the policy “an attack on women’s health rights.” Dr. Johnson said that PP will appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, arguing that the federal cuts violate the U.S. Constitution and the Affordable Care Act’s anti‑discrimination provisions. She emphasized that PP will continue to provide all non‑abortion services to the extent possible, but the lack of public funds will force the organization to scale back outreach and education programs.

“We’re not asking for more money; we’re demanding the federal government do what it says it will do—fund the life‑saving services that our patients need,” Johnson said. “This move is not only an affront to women across the nation but a direct assault on public health.”

Political Fallout

The policy has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers and public health advocates. Representative Rosa Delgado (D‑CA) called the Treasury Department’s decision “reckless” and pledged to support a resolution that would reinstate federal funding for PP. On the other hand, Republican senators who previously supported Texas’ anti‑PP legislation—such as Senator Jim Rhodes (R‑TX) and Senator Marcia Lee (R‑NC)—issued statements that the federal government is merely “following the rules” set by the states that led the charge.

The policy also threatens to widen the already stark health disparities in the U.S. According to a recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, patients who rely on PP for contraceptives have a 25% lower rate of unintended pregnancies compared to those who use private providers. Removing PP from the public health infrastructure could reverse this trend, especially among low‑income and minority populations that are disproportionately affected by unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.

Looking Ahead

The federal government’s cut marks a new chapter in the national debate over reproductive health funding. While the Texas playbook has already inflicted significant damage on PP’s ability to serve communities, the federal policy amplifies those effects across the country. The legal challenges in both state and federal courts are likely to shape the next several months, as PP seeks to preserve its core services amid dwindling resources.

Meanwhile, local health departments and community‑based organizations are scrambling to fill the void left by PP’s retreat. In states such as Ohio and Mississippi, where PP clinics have been closed or reduced for months, there is growing urgency to secure alternative funding streams, whether through Medicaid expansion, private grants, or local philanthropy.

In the end, the federal cuts may become a litmus test for the country’s commitment to reproductive health. Whether the policy can withstand legal scrutiny remains to be seen, but its immediate effects—fewer clinics, reduced access to essential services, and heightened public health risks—are already unfolding. As the political and legal battles continue, the nation watches closely to see whether the federal government will ultimately reverse course or cement a new standard for reproductive healthcare funding.