SUMMARY: Eric Orwoll, co-founder of Return to the Land (RTTL), a whites-only private membership group excluding non-white and Jewish people, said the group may expand near Springfield, Missouri. RTTL, based on 160 acres in northern Arkansas, promotes communities rooted in European ancestry and traditional values. The Anti-Defamation League condemned the group’s segregationist nature, calling for enforcement of fair housing laws. Orwoll claims RTTL’s activities are legal under the right to free association and envisions RTTL communities nationwide, offering services like homeschooling and legal advocacy. He emphasizes living among like-minded people amid demographic changes without forced racial integration.

Read the full article

The post A whites-only community could be coming to Springfield area appeared first on www.ozarksfirst.com

SUMMARY: Dekliderm offers a clinically studied topical cream to reduce wrinkles and loose, crepey skin on the neck for just $19.95. Aging often causes sagging skin in the neck area, making you look older, but Dekliderm’s retinol-based formula stimulates new cell growth and firms skin, showing visible improvements in as little as two weeks. A clinical study revealed 95% of women experienced firmer, more youthful-looking necks and chests. The cream also contains a gentle plant-based ingredient to reduce sagging. With a 60-day money-back guarantee, Dekliderm promises a confidence-boosting, luxurious skincare solution for aging neck skin.

SPONSORED – Dekliderm is a simple cream, no procedure or doctor’s visits and it’s clinically proven to give the neck a smoother appearance. Take the 60-day Dekliderm challenge and purchase yours for only $19.95!
For more information, visit dekliderm.com
Sponsored content disclaimer: The information and advice displayed in this story are those of individual sponsors or guests and not Nexstar Media Group, Inc

Source

by Jennifer Shutt, Missouri Independent
July 22, 2025

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday, blocking a provision in Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law that would have barred Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year.

District Court Judge Indira Talwani wrote in a 36-page opinion that Planned Parenthood established “a substantial likelihood of success on their equal protection claim” since the new law “burdens” the organization’s First Amendment rights. But she limited the protections to only certain Planned Parenthood clinics.

“A preliminary injunction maintains Planned Parenthood Members’ ability to seek Medicaid reimbursements—and maintain their status quo level of service to patients,” Talwani wrote. “And an injunction requiring Defendants to continue funding Medicaid reimbursements in accordance with the status quo imposes no additional Medicaid costs on Defendants, where there is no dispute that Medicaid funds will still be provided only for reimbursable healthcare services.”

Congress has barred federal taxpayer dollars from going to abortion services with limited exceptions for decades. But GOP lawmakers used their sweeping tax and spending cuts package to eliminate Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for other types of health care, like annual physicals and cancer screenings.

The original House version of the bill included a 10-year moratorium on Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood, but that was changed to a one-year prohibition in the Senate.

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging the new law just days after President Donald Trump signed it during a ceremony on the Fourth of July.

Talwani, who was nominated to the bench by former President Barack Obama, issued a temporary restraining order the same day the case was filed, blocking that provision’s implementation.

The Trump administration argued against the court issuing a preliminary injunction, writing in a 58-page motion submitted last week that Planned Parenthood’s “constitutional claims are utterly meritless.”

“All three democratically elected components of the Federal Government collaborated to enact that provision consistent with their electoral mandates from the American people as to how they want their hard-earned taxpayer dollars spent,” the brief states. “But Plaintiffs—Planned Parenthood Federation of America (“PPFA”) and its members (together, “Planned Parenthood”)—now want this Court to reject that judgment and supplant duly enacted legislation with their own policy preferences.”

Talwani wrote in her ruling that it would apply to “Planned Parenthood Association of Utah and other Planned Parenthood Federation of America Members who will not provide abortion services as of October 1, 2025, or for which the total amount of Federal and State expenditures under the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act for medical assistance furnished in fiscal year 2023 made directly to them did not exceed $800,000.”

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Association of Utah — the three organizations that filed the suit — issued a written statement after the ruling that they were “disappointed that not all members were granted the necessary relief today.”

“Patients across the country should be able to go to their trusted Planned Parenthood provider for birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment,” they wrote. “This is about patients and their right to get care — no matter their insurance. The court has not yet ruled on whether it will grant preliminary injunctive relief to other members. We remain hopeful that the court will grant this relief. There will be nothing short of a public health crisis if Planned Parenthood members are allowed to be ‘defunded.’”

The Department of Justice declined to comment whether it would appeal the preliminary injunction, though a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said it doesn’t agree with the ruling.

“We strongly disagree with the court’s decision,” HHS Director of Communications Andrew Nixon wrote in a statement. “States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care. This ruling undermines state flexibility and disregards longstanding concerns about accountability.”

The Trump administration filed a notice later Tuesday it intends to appeal the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. 

Last updated 4:54 p.m., Jul. 22, 2025

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.

The post ‘One big, beautiful’ law provision on Planned Parenthood funding partly blocked by judge appeared first on missouriindependent.com

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article presents a factual report on a federal court decision involving Planned Parenthood and Medicaid funding, focusing on the legal arguments, court rulings, and responses from both sides. The coverage highlights the protection of access to reproductive health services and critiques Republican-led efforts to restrict funding, which aligns with a center-left perspective that typically supports Planned Parenthood and Medicaid services. However, it maintains a balanced tone by including statements from the Trump administration and details about the legislative process, avoiding overtly partisan language. Overall, the content leans moderately center-left due to its emphasis on safeguarding healthcare access through judicial intervention.