Connect with us

The Center Square

Planned Parenthood spends big for Democrats, faces cuts under Republican control | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Casey Harper – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-12 10:09:00

(The Center Square) – Planned Parenthood’s political donations to Republicans have plummeted in the past decade, leaving the nation’s largest abortion provider with few friends on the right as it faces funding cuts under the Trump administration. 

Planned Parenthood reports that about 34% of its funding comes from the federal government, usually through federal grants or reimbursements from Medicaid. 

Planned Parenthood turns around and gives millions of dollars to Democrats each political cycle. In 2024, an analysis from the watchdog group Open Secrets, examining political donations from the large network of Planned Parenthood affiliates and political arms, the group donated $5,144,579, nearly all for liberal groups or Democrats, including former Vice President Kamala Harris in her bid against President Donald Trump.

No Republicans in the U.S. House or Senate received any donations from Planned Parenthood’s array of affiliates, according to Open Secrets. 

At the federal level, Democrats received 99.83% of the political donations. 

The nation’s largest abortion provider seems to have gone all in on one party, but that wasn’t always the case. A look back at the tenures of Barack Obama and George W. Bush showed Planned Parenthood gave to Republicans at the federal level as well. However, federal donation records show that the Trump era in Washington, D.C. is when donating to both sides came to an end. 

Now, Trump is in charge of the executive branch and Republicans hold narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, which seems poised to make his tax cuts permanent and enact other parts of his agenda.

Among a wave of other cost-saving cuts, Trump’s Health and Human Services agency is reportedly cutting tens of millions of dollars in Title X funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in about two dozen states. 

HHS Title X grants are long-standing funding sources from the HHS Office of Population Affairs to Planned Parenthood for family planning services. During his first term, Trump limited Title X recipients from referring for abortions, a measure that was overturned by the Biden administration. Now, the battle over the same funding is underway.

A coalition of 29 senators sent a letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. this week demanding the funding be reinstated. Notably absent were any Republican signatures.

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the group’s lobbying arm, blasted Trump for his recent cuts and defended the nonprofit’s work.

“President Trump and Elon Musk are pushing their dangerous political agenda, stripping health care access from people nationwide, and not giving a second thought to the devastation they will cause,” McGill said. 

But so far, it appears nobody is listening. 

Meanwhile, in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case that involves South Carolina’s ban on Planned Parenthood from receiving any Medicaid funds because it performs abortions, even if those funds are not being used on abortions. 

The Supreme Court case is not a direct challenge to South Carolina’s ban but whether private beneficiaries can sue to use their preferred provider, in this case Planned Parenthood. 

The ruling involving South Carolina’s 2018 ban is expected in June. It could rebuff or pave the way for other states to ban Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood. 

Republicans have eyed defunding Planned Parenthood for years, though without success, over the abortion issues. Now, Planned Parenthood has become a staunch advocate on transgender issues, a less popular tenet that has become the subject of scrutiny for Republicans and some moderates. 

“Planned Parenthood” is really a collection of linked groups, not a single entity. Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) provides medical services at hundreds of clinics around the country. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is one political arm. Planned Parenthood also has a SuperPAC called Planned Parenthood Votes. Affiliates around the country vary in their size, funding and political engagement.

On top of that, there are state and regional political arms of Planned Parenthood affiliates, similar to how labor unions have national political activity and then local activity carried out by local affiliates. 

This series of graphics from Open Secrets, shows the political donations of Planned Parenthood’s affiliates and demonstrates the recent dropoff in support for even moderate Republicans. These figures include donations to members of presidential committees as well.   

When defending their federal funding, Planned Parenthood advocates regularly point to the necessity of their healthcare services, like STI testing and cancer screenings in poorer areas.

In its 2022-2023 annual fiscal year report, Planned Parenthood boasted 392,715 abortions. It also conducted 1,721 adoption referrals.

A Knights of Columbus/Marist Poll in 2022 found that 71% of Americans support legal limits on abortion and 54% oppose taxpayer funding for abortions. 

Under current federal law, Planned Parenthood cannot be reimbursed by the federal government for abortions via Medicaid or Medicare except in the cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother.

However, Planned Parenthood received about $700 million in one year from the government, according to its 2022-2023 report.

Critics argue that even with limitations to prevent federal funding from directly paying for most abortions, taxpayers are still propping up the nation’s largest abortion provider to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. 

Defenders of Planned Parenthood say it helps underserved populations and provides abortions in places where recipients might otherwise struggle to obtain one. 

The post Planned Parenthood spends big for Democrats, faces cuts under Republican control | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.com

News from the South - Louisiana News Feed

Op-Ed: First do no harm begins with our diet | Opinion

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – By Louisiana Surgeon General Ralph Abraham – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 17:37:00

The Make America Healthy Again movement has gained significant attention throughout the nation and many of the top initiatives highlighted have found their way into state legislatures this session.

Louisiana is no exception and Senator Patrick McMath, R-Covington, has, via Senate Bill 14, proposed a significant cleanup of our food supply, especially focused on kids. Backed by the popular support of the MAHA Moms, this bill has three major parts that are worth examining separately for their merits.

First is a ban of several “ultra processed” foods in school meals. In this case the term ultra processed is defined as products that contain any one of 13 specifically referenced compounds. Of these the first 7 are artificial dyes, like red dye No. 40, derived from petroleum byproducts that serve a singular role to make food more visually appealing.

We should all be asking ourselves why we ever allowed this stuff to find its way into our food in the first place. Several of these synthetic dyes have been shown to be associated with various harms ranging from ADHD to allergies and tumors.

Most of the other compounds on the list sound like they should have a skull and cross bones on the label. Take the bread additive azodicarbonamide as an example. If you thought that sounded like something you should not eat, you would be right.

It breaks down into urethane (yes, like the paint), a known carcinogen, and is banned is just about every country but the U.S.

In the case of school lunches, the child has no choice in the matter. They eat what they are provided and we have an obligation to protect them from toxic substances in the cafeteria.

Second is a labeling requirement for foods containing the substances in the school lunch ban portion, plus a few more, known to have a questionable safety profile that are banned in other countries.

It directs manufacturers to place a label on any food or drink containing these chemicals that clearly alerts the consumer of the fact that it contains something that is banned in other countries.

Last, but certainly not least, is a provision to reform of the Supplemental Nutritional Aid Program, once known as food stamps. This program is federally sponsored, and provides food assistance to families with an income below 130% of the federal poverty line. This would be about $31,200 net yearly income for a family of four.

In our inflationary economic environment, every penny counts and when it comes to food and obtaining the maximum calories for minimum dollars is a necessity. Historically, the cheapest foods happen to also be the least healthy in many cases, condemning those dependent on the program to poor health.

Soft drinks containing very high sugar or sugar substitutes are a major contributor to the chronic diseases that plague our health system like obesity and diabetes, especially in children. This bill directs DCFS to seek a waiver from the federal government allowing Louisiana to prohibit use of SNAP to purchase soft drinks.

Ultimately, the federal government should go a step further and incentivize healthier alternatives for SNAP beneficiaries, but this bill represents a major step in the right direction that can be accomplished at the state level.

The old saying goes: “You are what you eat.” We should keep this literal and obvious truth in mind when we think about how to turn the tide on chronic disease in our nation.

Let us begin by protecting the children who are too young to choose for themselves and providing better information for adults who can. SB 14 will accomplish both goals and move Louisiana to the forefront of the movement to Make America Healthy Again.

Dr. Ralph L. Abraham, M.D. is the  Louisiana Surgeon General

The post Op-Ed: First do no harm begins with our diet | Opinion appeared first on www.thecentersquare.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.



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

The article presents a clear ideological stance that aligns with health-conscious, regulatory-focused policy perspectives often associated with center-left viewpoints. It advocates for government intervention to regulate food safety, particularly in school meals and assistance programs like SNAP, emphasizing protection of public health and vulnerable populations such as children and low-income families. The tone is supportive of regulations to restrict harmful substances and promote healthier choices, which suggests a bias favoring increased oversight and reform in food policies rather than a neutral, detached report.

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Newsom parole board approves release of another toddler murderer | California

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Kenneth Schrupp – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 17:30:00

(The Center Square) – California Board of Parole Hearings ordered the release of convicted child murderer Herbert David Brown III, making this the second announced early release of a convicted child murderer in recent weeks.

San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow, whose office convicted Brown for beating his 22-month-old daughter Lily to death, has requested that California Gov. Gavin Newsom use his authority to overturn the parole board’s decision. All current board members are Newsom appointees.

“Brown has done self-help programming but didn’t express responsibility for Lily’s death until Inmate Brown was told that failure to do so was a bar to being paroled,” wrote Dow. “Even then, Inmate Brown’s account lacked credibility.”

“Brown has significant mental health issues that appear to require ongoing monitoring and treatment,” continued Dow. “Inmate Brown’s relapse prevention plans are inadequate and superficial.”

Brown entered a plea of no contest and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison for the murder. Lily was found dead with multiple injuries, including a fractured skull.

Brown was under the influence of methamphetamine when he killed his daughter. He now identifies as a woman and has served 12 years of his sentence.  

According to the most recent Comprehensive Risk Assessment on Brown from 2023, he was found to be a “higher moderate” risk for violence. 

Brown was first granted parole in October 2024, after which California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has appointed all current members of the California Board of Parole Hearings, referred the parole decision back to the parole board for review. The board has since reaffirmed its earlier decision, and Dow is seeking residents to write to the governor to use his constitutional authority to override the parole board.

“Precious Lily deserves better. The time is now Governor Newsom, please help ensure that we have Justice for Lily Brown,” said Dow.

“The Governor has authority under California Constitution, Article V, Section 8(b) to reverse a decision to release a convicted murderer on parole, but must do so within 30 calendar days,” continued Dow. “The decision was issued on April 22, 2025.”

There is currently no release date set for Brown.

Two weeks ago, the Board of Parole Hearings’ decision to approve the early release of convicted child murderer Josue Herrera, who was found to have beaten his girlfriend’s 2-year-old son to death, sparked national outrage against the state’s apparent leniency toward murders of young children. 

Dow said Brown’s early release is possible due to Proposition 57, passed in 2016. 

Prop. 57 was written to only allow early release of “prisoners convicted of non-violent felonies.” 

However, because the state automatically classifies any crimes not specifically classified as violent to be non-violent, such as drive-by shootings and assault with a deadly weapon, many violent crimes are not technically considered “violent” per se.

Dow also noted Prop. 57 allows the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior or educational achievements, even to those who committed crimes classified as violent.

“This means that even those inmates sentenced for violent offenses, like murder of a child, are eligible to be released much earlier than under the law that was in effect prior to the passage of Proposition 57,” said Dow.

The post Newsom parole board approves release of another toddler murderer | California appeared first on www.thecentersquare.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: Right-Leaning

This article presents a narrative that is critical of the California Board of Parole Hearings and Governor Gavin Newsom’s appointments, focusing on the early release of convicted child murderers. The tone and framing emphasize public safety concerns and criticize the perceived leniency of the parole system under progressive policies like Proposition 57. The language used highlights the gravity of the crimes and frames the parole decisions as contentious and problematic, which aligns with a right-leaning viewpoint commonly skeptical of criminal justice reforms associated with more liberal or progressive politics. While the article reports facts, the selection and emphasis on these facts, and the inclusion of the District Attorney’s plea for the governor to intervene, reveal a conservative-leaning perspective.

Continue Reading

The Center Square

Trump softens tariffs for U.S. automakers through complex rules | National

Published

on

www.thecentersquare.com – Brett Rowland – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-30 15:45:00

(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump took measures to lessen the impact of tariffs on U.S. automakers, but vehicle prices are expected to increase. 

“We just wanted to help them during this little transition, short term,” Trump said. “We didn’t want to penalize them.”

The 25% tariff on imported cars remains, and a new 25% tariff on auto parts will go into effect May 3. But Trump’s latest executive order allows reimbursements for U.S. producers importing car parts, which will be subject to 25% tariffs starting May 3. The maximum reimbursement will be 3.75% of the value of domestically produced cars. The cap falls to 2.5% for the second year and is phased out entirely after that.

Trump’s executive order also means that automakers that pay tariffs on imported cars won’t be required to pay other import duties, such as those on steel and aluminum.

“They all want to come back to Michigan and build cars again. You know why? Because of our tax and tariff policy,” Trump said Tuesday during his rally in Michigan. “We’re giving them a little time before we slaughter them if they don’t do this.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the goal was to get automakers to create more U.S. jobs.

“President Trump has had meetings with both domestic and foreign auto producers, and he’s committed to bringing back auto production to the U.S.,” Bessent said. “So we want to give the automakers a path to do that, quickly, efficiently and create as many jobs as possible.”

Still, vehicle prices are expected to increase as tariffs reshape the market.

Cox Automotive Chief Economist Jonathan Smoke said “uncertainty remains acute, especially regarding what will happen with the tariffs.” 

“Supply has since tightened and prices have moved higher,” he said. “With higher prices, urgency has diminished.”

Smoke said the next two months could set the stage for the rest of the year. 

“Instead of putting China first, I’m putting Michigan first and I’m putting America first,” Trump said at the Macomb County Rally.

Even before Trump’s auto tariffs, cars were too expensive for many Americans. The average price of a new vehicle in the U.S. is above $48,000, according to Cox Automotive. Real median household income was $80,610 in 2023, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. However, more than 40% of new-vehicle sales by volume in 2024 were priced below $40,000.

The post Trump softens tariffs for U.S. automakers through complex rules | National appeared first on www.thecentersquare.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-Right

The article predominantly reports on actions taken by President Donald Trump regarding tariffs on U.S. automakers with largely neutral language, including direct quotes from Trump and officials, as well as commentary from a chief economist. However, the framing subtly aligns with a center-right perspective by emphasizing Trump’s economic policies favoring U.S. industry and job creation, and by using language that reflects his own nationalist and protectionist rhetoric (“putting Michigan first and I’m putting America first”). The article presents these policies without overt criticism, thus reflecting a viewpoint sympathetic to the administration’s economic nationalism rather than a strictly neutral or critical stance. This suggests a center-right bias, leaning towards support for Trump’s economic agenda.

Continue Reading

Trending