“The case concerned whether states can block Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood affiliates that provide such women with annual health screens, contraceptive coverage and cancer screening.”
That doesn’t even make sense. And what it’s trying to say is probably fake.
I don’t know enough to know what to make of this case and the arguments on both sides. But that sentence seems pretty clear to me—I think the states wanted to block PP as a provider of any Medicaid-funded services, apparently based on the expose of their trafficking in tissue sales.
If I understand this not-too-clear article and Justice Thomas correctly, the issue as he sees it at least is whether individual Medicaid recipients have standing to challenge such a prohibition.
As you suggest, this lamestream infomercial steps chastely around the main point, which is that any services provided by PP are only there as marketing for its abortion services--which are its most profitable "product." A state, according to the Feds, runs its own Medicaid program, and would be quite reasonable in wanting to avoid this octopus of evil altogether and shop somewhere else. I do not see why a state would not be within its rights to do so. They get to choose which vendors to bring in lunch or fix the toilets, don't they?
It’s also a lie. Planned Parenthood does not provide breast cancer screenings - they have no mammogram machines.
Why doesn’t it make sense? It is a clearly writen sentence. Clearly comprehensible. It is an argument used by liberals for decades. If you let me know exactly what you don’t understand, I will be glad to explain.
It’s got to be some other legal issue.
I think this case boils down to whether or not a Medicare recipient is able to go to a facility/doctor of their choosing. According to the law that was passed by congress, the answer to that question is yes.
That said, not sure how that got conflated with whether or not we separately fund PP with tax dollars.