GOP Sen blasts Biden admin claiming abortion travel policy is essential to military readiness

FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is questioning President Biden's Department of Defense over its abortion travel assistance policies that Secretary Lloyd Austin has previously said are important for force readiness. 

Wicker suggested that recently-revealed data casts doubt on the Biden administration's justifications for the policies. The Department of Defense has said the abortion travel policy is important for ensuring troop readiness.

PENTAGON RELEASES DATA ON CONTROVERSIAL ABORTION TRAVEL POLICY FOR SERVICE MEMBERS

In a letter sent on Monday, the senator requested evidence from the Pentagon on how its abortion travel allowances are necessary for force readiness in the wake of Roe v. Wade's reversal, as Austin previously claimed.

In a development on Tuesday, the department announced new figures regarding the policy, soon after being asked for comment by Fox News Digital, and one day after Wicker's letter prompted it to explain new data he obtained through another Senate committee. 

According to Deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh, the travel allowance policy was used 12 times from June-December of 2023. The allowances can be used for "non-covered" abortions, but are also approved for other procedures and treatments. The cost to the Pentagon was roughly $40,800, she said. 

While the department offers authorized allowances for travel and transportation assistance, this does not mean that all service members who travel to obtain abortions have requested or received such allowances. 

In his Monday letter, Wicker noted he received data "indirectly through a different Senate committee," which showed that the Army recorded "between August 2023 and December 31, 2023, three service members utilized the policy and claimed travel expenses totaling $2,097."

REPUBLICANS SEE EMBATTLED MENENDEZ'S POTENTIAL INDEPENDENT BID AS CHANCE TO FLIP SENATE SEAT

The data on abortion policy usage and cost in 2023 was provided to another Senate committee by the Army, per Wicker's office. It was then forwarded to Wicker. 

"Still, with today’s news, the fact remains: This administration has recklessly politicized the military with this farce of a policy," said Wicker in a statement to Fox News Digital. "The Department even admitted today that those that use the policy may not have even used it for an abortion. The reality is that access to abortions is not a threat to readiness."

Wicker recalled Austin's past claim that the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, returning the issue of abortion to the states, "has impacted access to reproductive health care, with readiness, recruiting and retention implications for the force."

COMER FUNDRAISING EMAIL DAMPENS PROSPECTS OF BIDEN IMPEACHMENT, SAYS 'CRIMINAL REFERRALS' ARE GOAL

In the letter, Wicker slammed the department for providing only "incomplete, evasive, or outright non-answers" when he prompted it on three separate occasions in 2023 for information to justify the abortion policy and how it affects force readiness. 

He noted that in response to his most recent letter in December, the department focused on fertilization services and avoided discussing the "provision of non-covered abortion services that end the lives of unborn babies."

Wicker further criticized the department's response for refusing to provide information on the usage of the policies and the amount of money that was being spent, prompting him to obtain the information elsewhere. He claimed the response, "is contradicted by the Army's data which clearly provided the number of service members who have claimed reimbursement of travel expenses using the policy." 

GOING, GOING, GONE: COULD THE REPUBLICANS' SLIM HOUSE MAJORITY SLIP AWAY BEFORE NOVEMBER?

"That number is essential to best capture the actual readiness impact on the force, if any," he explained in the Monday letter. 

Wicker additionally requested the department to provide up-to-date data, "in the same form the Army has provided," on usage of the policy since implementation. 

The senator had also requested "immediate delivery" of this data from the department, noting the other occasions on which it was not provided. 

Senate Dems, Republicans clash over federal IVF protections: ‘They’re covering their a—s’

Senate Republicans pointed to Alabama's recent law to protect in vitro fertilization (IVF) providers from civil and criminal liability as proof of states' capacity to self-correct and the reason Democrat-led federal legislation to protect the fertility procedure isn't necessary.

"Basically every state I know of supports IVF," said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a doctor.

Other Republican senators who spoke to Fox News Digital agreed.

Following a controversial decision by Alabama's Supreme Court ruling frozen embryos were legally children, the state's legislature quickly sprung into action to protect IVF. Several clinics conducting IVF shut down their procedures after the court's decision, but once the state passed a law releasing them from liability, some of the centers began to reopen. 

REP. MATT ROSENDALE SAYS HE'S NOT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION: 'TAKEN A SERIOUS TOLL ON ME'

GOP LAWMAKERS RALLY AROUND GOLD STAR DAD ARRESTED AFTER HECKLING BIDEN DURING SOTU

Cassidy cited Alabama's fast legislative work in his explanation against federal legislation on IVF. 

"Once you get the federal government involved, it's going to open the door to some mischief that goes far beyond what you originally wanted to," he said. 

"The issue that brought this debate was happening in Alabama, and they've dealt with it in legislation," added Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. 

According to Rubio, a larger conversation is necessary "about what's right and appropriate and legal and protected when it comes to discarding the extra human embryos that are not going to be used."

"It's legal in all 50 states," said Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., who introduced a resolution this week affirming support for IVF. 

TRUMP INSTALLS TOP ALLY AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW TO STEER REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Scott's resolution expresses support for IVF and families looking to expand but doesn't carry the weight of a bill or make changes to the law. 

Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who spearheaded a bill to enshrine protections for IVF into law, slammed the resolution.

"They're covering their a---s," Duckworth said of her Republican colleagues. "That's what they're trying to do. A resolution doesn't do anything." 

DID BIDEN PASS OR FAIL? FORMER PRESIDENTIAL SPEECHWRITERS GRADE THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

Duckworth attempted to force a vote last week on her IVF bill, asking for unanimous consent to move it to the floor. However, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., objected to it. 

Duckworth said Republicans had not been approaching her to negotiate a potential bipartisan measure either. 

And its unclear whether Democrats would be willing to make concessions to work with their Republican colleagues on a bill. 

"The Duckworth bill is a perfect bill," said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. "Her bill is just a person has a right to access IVF, and a provider has a right to provide IVF. It's not a mandate. It just protects the patient, protects the provider."

COMER INVITES HUNTER BIDEN, BUSINESS ASSOCIATES TO TESTIFY PUBLICLY MARCH 20 AMID IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Scott notably didn't rule out legislation to protect the procedure in the future. 

"I think we're gonna do everything we can to make sure it continues to be legal," he said. 

Other Republicans similarly left the door open. 

A federal bill to protect the fertility procedure is "certainly a discussion we can have, but at this point it's protected in every state," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. 

"If it ever became an issue, I would consider it," added Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah. "But there's not a state in the country that does not protect IVF."

TOP TAKEAWAYS FROM BIDEN'S WILD WEEK

According to Romney, it doesn't require "federal addressing at this stage."

"If there was a point there needed to be federal action on it, I would definitely be supportive," agreed Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla. 

"I believe that way Alabama handled it was good."

A number of Democratic senators were critical of their GOP colleagues' claims federal protections aren't needed now. 

"I think that's wrong," claimed Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn. "Absolutely, we need to protect people's capacity to access" IVF. 

SEN. SCHMITT SAYS BIDEN FAILED TO ADDRESS KEY ISSUES DURING 'DIVISIVE,' 'BIZARRE' SOTU ADDRESS

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., expressed skepticism over Alabama's new law, telling Fox News Digital legal scholars believe "it raises as many questions as it answers."

"Without the protection of Roe v. Wade, the states can do what the Alabama court did and effectively end IVF in the state," she warned. 

According to Warren, if congressional Republicans were "truly committed to protecting IVF," they would be in favor of a bill to do so federally. "But, so far, they are not." 

Abortion debate creates ‘new era’ for state supreme court races in 2024, with big spending expected

CHICAGO (AP) — The 2024 elections will be dominated by the presidential contest and the battle for control of Congress, but another series of races is shaping up to be just as consequential.

Crucial battles over abortion, gerrymandering, voting rights and other issues will take center stage in next year’s elections for state supreme court seats — 80 of them in 33 states.

NATIONAL ARCHIVES SETTLES WITH MARCH FOR LIFE VISITORS TOLD TO REMOVE PRO-LIFE CLOTHING

The races have emerged as some of the most hotly contested and costliest contests on the ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the consitutional right to an abortion. The decision shifted the abortion debate to states, creating a "new era" in state supreme court elections, said Douglas Keith, senior counsel in the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks spending in judicial races.

"We have seen attention on state supreme court elections like never before and money in these races like never before," Keith said.

Heated court races in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2023 handed victories to Democrats and saw tens of millions of dollars in TV ads, offering a preview of 2024. They're also prompting groups to consider investing in states they would not previously have considered.

ABORTION AND GERRYMANDERING TOP ISSUES

At least 38 lawsuits have been filed challenging abortion bans in 23 states, according to the Brennan Center. Many of those are expected to end up before state supreme courts.

The ACLU is watching cases challenging abortion restrictions in Wyoming, Kentucky, Ohio, Utah, Florida, Nevada, Arizona, Nebraska, Georgia and Montana.

"After Roe v. Wade was overturned, we had to turn to state courts and state constitutions as the critical backstop to protecting access to abortion," said Brigitte Amiri, deputy director at the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. "And the stakes are unbelievably high in each of these cases in each of these states."

The ACLU was among major spenders on behalf of Democrats in this year's state supreme court contests in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

Another big player in recent court races has been the Republican State Leadership Committee, which has said its focus is mainly on redistricting, or the drawing of political district boundaries. The group called state supreme courts the "last line of defense against far-left national groups," but didn't say how much it intends to spend on next year's races or which states it's focusing on.

In Ohio, Democrats are expected to cast state supreme court races as an extension of the November election in which voters enshrined the right to abortion in the state constitution. The state has more than 30 abortion restrictions in place that could be challenged now that the amendment has passed.

"The state supreme court is going to be the ultimate arbiter of the meaning of the new constitutional amendment that the people voted for and organized around," said Jessie Hill, law professor at Case Western Reserve University and a consultant for Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights. "That is a huge amount of power."

With three seats up for a vote and a current Republican majority of 4-3, Democrats have an opportunity to flip the majority of the court while Republicans will try to expand their control. Hill said the "very high-stakes election" will serve as another test of the salience of the abortion issue in turning out voters.

"We saw an incredible number of voters come out to vote on that amendment and an incredible amount of investment in those campaigns," Hill added. "I think we’ll see a similar attention and investment in Ohio come next year."

Redistricting also is likely to be a main focus in the state's supreme court races, given the court will have realigned politically since it issued a series of rulings finding Ohio’s congressional and legislative maps unconstitutionally gerrymandered to favor Republicans, said David Niven, political science professor at the University of Cincinnati. He expects millions of dollars to be spent on those campaigns.

"There’s often little conversation about these races, but they are just so utterly consequential in very tangible, practical ways that touch voters’ everyday lives," he said.

MAP BROADENS FOR CONSEQUENTIAL RACES

Pending legislative and congressional redistricting cases also could play a role in North Carolina.

Republicans in North Carolina are looking to expand their majority two years after the court flipped from Democratic control in the 2022 election. That flip to a 5-2 GOP majority led to dramatic reversals in 2023 on rulings made by the previous court, which had struck down a 2018 photo voter identification law as well as district maps for the General Assembly and the state’s congressional delegation.

Groups on both sides also are expected to focus on Michigan, where Democrats hold a 4-3 majority on the state Supreme Court. Candidates run without political affiliations listed on the ballot, though they’re nominated by political parties.

Two incumbents — one Democrat, one Republican — will be up for election in 2024. The court recently kept former President Donald Trump on the state's ballot, denying a liberal group's request to kick him off. It is currently weighing a high-profile case over a Republican legislative maneuver that gutted a minimum wage hike backed by voters.

2023 RACES A PREVIEW

In Wisconsin, abortion played a dominant role in the 2023 court race, with Democrats flipping the court to a 4-3 majority in a campaign that shattered previous national records for spending in state supreme court elections.

Liberal-leaning Justice Janet Protasiewicz defeated former Justice Dan Kelly, who previously worked for Republicans and had support from the state’s leading anti-abortion groups.

Protasiewicz was targeted with impeachment threats this year over comments she made on the campaign trail about redistricting as Republicans argued she had prejudged what then was an expected case on the state's heavily gerrymandered state legislative districts. Experts say the controversy is an example of how more money and attention have changed the dynamics of many state supreme court races to be increasingly partisan.

Democrats in Pennsylvania added to their majority on the court after a race with tens of millions of dollars in spending. Democrat Dan McCaffery won after positioning himself as a strong defender of abortion rights.

CONTESTED SEATS EVEN IN DEEP RED STATES

It remains to be seen whether abortion rights will play a factor in states where party control isn't at stake. That includes Arkansas, where the court is expected to maintain its 4-3 conservative majority. The seats up next year include the chief justice position, which has drawn three sitting justices.

A fight over abortion could wind up before the court, with a group trying to put a measure on the ballot next year that would scale back a state ban on the procedure that took effect once Roe was overturned.

Abortion rights supporters also aren't writing off longshot states such as Texas and its all-Republican high court, which rejected the request from a pregnant woman whose fetus had a fatal condition to be exempted from the state's strict abortion ban.

In Montana, Republicans have spent huge sums to try to push the court in a more conservative direction. The liberal-leaning court is expected to hear cases related to restrictions on transgender youth and abortion. A landmark climate change case also is pending before the court, which will have two of its seven seats up for election.

Jeremiah Lynch, a former federal magistrate running for the open chief justice position, has cast himself as a defender of the court's independence and has warned voters to expect a barrage of negative advertising. Cory Swanson, a county attorney also running for the post, announced his bid on a conservative talk show and recently vowed to weed out any "radicalized" applicants for law clerks in response to antisemitism on college campuses.

In West Virginia, where conservatives have a current 5-4 majority on the court and two seats will be up for grabs, GOP chair Elgine McArdle said Republicans aim to focus more on judicial races than in years past.

"One area the state party has never really engaged much in is nonpartisan races, including the judicial races," McArdle said. "That won’t be the case this time around."

Tuberville not budging on military holds over abortion policy as Dems eye rules change

FIRST ON FOX: Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., has no plans to concede his protest against the Department of Defense (DOD) funding some costs for abortion procedures for military service members, even as Senate Democrats plan to advance a proposal to change the rules this week.

Democrats, some Republicans and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz., plan to maneuver around Tuberville's hold on military promotions by introducing a change in the Senate Rules Committee that would allow them to approve a batch of nominees through 2024.

Tuberville said the "only power" senators have is "through holes" by trying to change the procedures. It would take nine Republicans to vote with Senate Democrats for a resolution bypassing the holds to pass. It would first go through the rules committee.

"I'm trying to keep the White House from playing dictator along with the Pentagon," Tuberville told Fox News Digital. "Abortion is the No. 1 issue in our country in our lifetime when it comes to social issues, and the American people need to have a say so now."

TUBERVILLE TO MAINTAIN HOLD ON MILITARY NOMINEES OVER PENTAGON ABORTION POLICY

The DOD's abortion policy was implemented after the overturning of Roe v. Wade last year.

Hundreds of promotion nominees remain in limbo as Tuberville's nearly nine-months-long hold continues in protest of the Pentagon's abortion policy, which allots paid leave and travel costs for service members who seek an abortion. He confirmed that he has no plans to lift the blockade unless it's punted in a floor vote.

"And then whichever way it goes, you know, that's life, but that's the only way that I will drop my hold," he said. "They're not going to press me any other way."

After talking to several generals and leaders in the military, there's no issue with "military readiness" as some might suggest, Tuberville added.

"I know there's some people [who] probably need promotions, and it means a little bit more money," he said. "But at the end of the day, I've talked to a lot of generals and admirals, and they've all said, ‘Listen, the job is getting done.’"

TUBERVILLE FORCES SCHUMER'S HAND IN MILITARY NOMINEE VOTES: 'HE BLINKED'

TUBERVILLE SAYS HOUSE GOP MUST 'NOT WASTE TIME' WITH BIDEN IMPEACHMENT

Despite efforts to overturn the current hold, Tuberville, a retired college football coach, said he doesn't think a rule change will happen. It would need 60 votes to pass. Republicans currently hold 49 seats in the Senate while Democrats hold the majority at 51.

"I think that we'll be able to hold her in the line and force them to eventually vote on this," he said.

"We're not the House," he added. "The House is a simple majority. Over here, you've got to get 60 votes. That means you got to have people from the other side convinced that this is what you need to do. That's the reason we're different."

Planned Parenthood announces return of abortion in Wisconsin after key court ruling

Planned Parenthood will resume offering abortion services to women in Wisconsin following a key court ruling against existing abortion restrictions in the state.

Planned Parenthood's clinics in Milwaukee and Madison had previously been forced to close due to the state government attempting to use an 1849 law to ban abortions. A state judge ruled that the law does not, in fact, apply to abortions, paving the way for providers to resume services.

"With patients and community as our central priority and driving force, we are eager to resume abortion services and provide this essential care to people in our State," Tanya Atkinson, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said in a Thursday statement. 

"With the recent confirmation from the Court that there is not an enforceable abortion ban in Wisconsin, our staff can now provide the full scope of sexual and reproductive health care to anyone in Wisconsin who needs it, no matter what," she continued.

WASHINGTON POST COLUMNIST CALLS OUT FACT-CHECKERS OVER CLAIM DEMOCRATS DON’T SUPPORT ABORTION UP UNTIL BIRTH

Abortions will resume at the pair of Wisconsin clinics on Monday.

The 1849 law in question bans the killing of fetuses, something that Republican leaders in the state argued applied to abortion. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper disagreed, however, ruling this summer that "consensual medical abortions" do not constitute killing a fetus.

PSAKI REPEATS CLAIM THAT DEMS DON’T SUPPORT ABORTION UNTIL BIRTH: ‘ENTIRELY MISLEADING’

Instead, Schlipper interpreted the law to ban an intentional attack on a mother with the goal of killing a fetus.

"There is no such thing as an ‘1849 Abortion Ban’ in Wisconsin," she wrote in her ruling.

Democratic Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers had attempted to overturn the 1849 ban via a repeal bill, but the Republican-held legislature refused to take up the legislation.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Wisconsin Democrats launch $4M ad blitz targeting GOP lawmakers considering impeachment of new liberal justice

Wisconsin Democrats are launching a $4 million ad blitz over the next several weeks to target GOP lawmakers that are considering whether to pursue the impeachment of a new liberal justice. 

Justice Janet Protasiewicz's ascension to the Wisconsin Supreme Court created a new 4-3 liberal majority, jeopardizing Republican-drawn state legislative maps and risking the repeal of a 173-year-old state law that bans abortion. The statute became active again after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

The Wisconsin Democratic Party on Wednesday launched a $4 million effort to pressure Republicans to back down from impeaching Protasiewicz. 

After investing nearly $10 million in electing the liberal justice, the effort is meant to protect what Democrats hailed as a major political victory. The new $4 million effort, which leaders said will grow to include other groups, will include digital and television ads, in-person voter outreach and a website that tracks where every Republican lawmaker stands on impeachment.

WISCONSIN OFFICIALS BLOCKED FROM USING FEDERAL VOTER REGISTRATION FORM

"Politicians should not be overturning elections because they don’t like the results or the outcome," said Democrat Senate Minority Leader Melissa Agard at a press conference outside the state capitol. "And we cannot let Robin Vos and Wisconsin’s Republicans get away with this unconstitutional, unprecedented power grab in our state."

"Republicans are holding a political nuclear football," Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler said, deeming the threat of impeachment had amounted to "political extortion."

Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, who has been the most outspoken about possible impeachment, said the effort only proves that the party's and Protasiewicz's interests "are one and the same."

During the campaign, Protasiewicz spoke in favor of abortion and called GOP-drawn maps "unfair" and "rigged." Justices for the Wisconsin Supreme Court are officially nonpartisan, but the candidates have long aligned along partisan lines. Republicans have raised impeachment as a possibility if Protasiewicz does not recuse herself from consideration of two redistricting lawsuits filed in her first week in office last month. The GOP-controlled legislature asked for her to step aside from the cases.

Protasiewicz on Tuesday gave attorneys until Sept. 18 to react to the fact that the Wisconsin Judicial Commission, which investigates complaints against judges, dismissed complaints against her that alleged her campaign comments on redistricting violated the state judicial code.

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES RULE STATE LAWMAKERS DO NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER ELECTIONS IN KEY DECISION

A lawsuit in a county court seeking to overturn Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban was filed before Protasiewicz won the election. That case is expected to eventually reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The legislative electoral maps drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2011 cemented the party’s majorities, which now stand at 65-34 in the Assembly and a 22-11 supermajority in the Senate. It would take only 50 votes to impeach. It takes 22 votes to convict in the Senate, the exact number of seats Republicans hold.

If the state Senate moves forward to convict Protasiewicz on impeachment charges and remove her from her position before Dec. 1, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, would be required to announce a replacement. That person would face voters next April when the GOP presidential primary would also be on the ballot, the New York Times reported. 

Though there is not much precedent for an impeachment, the state constitution limits reasons to impeach a sitting officeholder to corrupt conduct in office or the commission of a crime.

The escalating fight over her seat has implications for the 2024 presidential election in the battleground state.

In 2020, the conservative-controlled Supreme Court came within one vote of overturning President Biden's win in the state. More fights over election rules that will be in place for the 2024 election are pending and any disputes over the winner could be decided once again by the state Supreme Court.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Texas lawsuit seeks at least $17M in Medicaid reimbursements from Planned Parenthood

A Texas lawsuit is aiming to require Planned Parenthood to return millions of dollars in Medicaid payments for health services and even more money in fines.

A hearing was set for Tuesday in front of U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk as the state seeks to recoup at least $17 million from nation's largest abortion provider, according to The Associated Press. Earlier this year, Kacsmaryk invalidated FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone.

The case against Planned Parenthood does not center around abortion, which has been banned in Texas with exceptions for risk to the mother's life since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

Planned Parenthood claims the lawsuit is a new effort to weaken the organization after years of laws from Republicans that pulled funding and restricted how its clinics operate.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. SAYS HE MISUNDERSTOOD ABORTION QUESTION, DOES NOT SUPPORT ANY FEDERAL BAN

The organization received money for health services before it was removed from Texas' Medicaid program in 2021. The state had started attempting to remove Planned Parenthood four years earlier and now seeks repayment for services billed during that time.

"This baseless case is an active effort to shut down Planned Parenthood health centers," Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Alexis McGill Johnson said.

Texas filed the lawsuit under the federal False Claims Act, which allows fines for every alleged improper payment. According to Planned Parenthood, this could result in a judgment in excess of $1 billion.

The lawsuit was brought last year by Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is temporarily suspended from office as he awaits an impeachment trial next month over allegations of bribery and abuse of office.

Last year, Paxton said it was "unthinkable that Planned Parenthood would continue to take advantage of funding knowing they were not entitled to keep it."

Planned Parenthood has roughly three dozen clinics in Texas, but one closed following the historic SCOTUS ruling that allowed states to make their own laws regarding abortion access.

Former federal prosecutor Jacob Elberg, who specialized in health care fraud, said he believes Texas' case is weak, adding that the federal False Claims Act is the state's most powerful tool against health fraud.

Other cases involving this law in recent years were brought against a health records company in Florida, which paid $45 million to resolve allegations of improperly generating sales, and a Montana health clinic that submitted false asbestos claims.

IOWA MAN FOUND NOT GUILTY AFTER DRIVING INTO CROWD OF ANTI-ABORTION PROTESTERS IN EFFORT TO PROTECT FAMILY

Elberg, now the faculty director at Seton Hall Law School's Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law, said it is difficult to understand how Planned Parenthood was knowingly filing false claims while it was in court fighting to stay in the program and Texas was still paying the reimbursements.

"This just isn't what the False Claims Act is supposed to be about," Elberg said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Boebert blasts Dem opponent fundraising off family members performing abortions: ‘Disgusting’

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., accused her 2024 Democrat opponent of choosing "to fundraise off the killing of innocent babies" after a campaign email touted his family members' long history in the abortion industry.

Adam Frisch, the Democrat vying for the Republican-held Colorado seat next cycle, sent an email blast Saturday, highlighting that members of his family were abortion doctors and labeling Boebert's pro-life position as "extreme."

Adam's father, Melvin Frisch, has a decades-long history of work in the abortion industry dating back to the early 1970s, when he served in the Public Health Service on the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in northeastern Montana.

Frisch said in the fundraising email that his abortionist father – who in 1982 published an analysis arguing that dilation and evacuation abortions were safe to perform after 13 weeks of pregnancy – "really shaped how I think about the issue."

REP BOEBERT SAYS SHE WILL USE PRIVILEGED MOTION TO BRING IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES AGAINST BIDEN

According to the Foundations of Life Pregnancy Center, dilation and evacuation abortions usually occur within the 13th to 24th week of pregnancy, but the "fetus is too large to be broken up by suction alone and will not pass through the suction tubing."

The center describes how after "the cervix is stretched open, the doctor pulls out the fetal parts with forceps. The fetus’ skull is crushed to ease removal. A sharp tool (called a curette) is also used to scrape out the contents of the uterus, removing any remaining tissue."

COLORADO DEMS VOTE AGAINST HARSHER PENALTIES FOR INDECENT EXPOSURE TO KIDS BECAUSE IT COULD ‘BAN DRAG SHOWS’

Melvin Frisch was also medical director of Planned Parenthood Arizona, which his congressional candidate son said "helped train the next generation of health care providers at Planned Parenthood," according to the email.

Frisch noted in the email how he is excited that his OB-GYN sister, Hope Frisch, is continuing his father's "legacy" in the field.

"My opponent, Lauren Boebert, wants you to think that women having the freedom to make their own medical decisions is some extreme idea. It’s not," Frisch said of his pro-life contender.

Boebert has a history of siding with pro-life legislation in Congress, most recently introducing the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2023 in January to place a one-year moratorium on federal funds given to Planned Parenthood.

"Abortion is the Frisch family business," Boebert told Fox News Digital in an exclusive statement. "Abortions paid for Adam's privileged childhood and private schooling, and abortionists help fund his campaign."

"It's disgusting Adam Frisch chooses to fundraise off the killing of innocent babies, but everyone needs to understand for Adam, abortions mean lining his family's pockets and filling his campaign coffers," the congresswoman said, hitting back at the Democrat's email.

Frisch's campaign did not respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

Supreme Court temporarily allows access to abortion pill mifepristone amid judges’ contradicting orders

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed access to the abortion pill mifepristone after a Texas ruling last week set limits to the use of the drug. 

Justice Samuel Alito halted the lower court rulings that seek to limit access to mifepristone Friday, which in turn freezes the litigation being pursued by anti-abortion groups and maintains availability. 

The conservative justice asked for challenges to the lower court ruling to be filed by Tuesday at noon.

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled last week that the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) improperly approved mifepristone.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed emergency requests Friday to freeze Kacsmaryk's injunction, along with Danco Laboratories. 

The halt on the ruling gives the Biden administration more time to issue challenges.

JUSTICE THOMAS DEFENDS TRIPS TAKEN WITH ‘DEAREST FRIENDS’ AFTER REPORTS SAY HE ACCEPTED GIFTS

Kacsmaryk's ruling would limit the drug's distribution and jeopardize mifepristone's FDA approval.

The Biden administration is planning to defend mifepristone's availability in light of the landmark Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022. 

Anti-abortion groups and Republican legislators across the country are advocating for abortion bans and restrictions. 

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRATS CALL FOR CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT AFTER REPORTED UNDISCLOSED GIFTS FROM GOP MEGADONOR

The Supreme Court will keep the Texas ruling on hold until 11:59 p.m. Wednesday. The court is expected to issue another order by that time.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved mifepristone in 2000. It has been used to terminate more than 5 million pregnancies.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Mace calls Texas mifepristone ruling ‘unconstitutional,’ says GOP on ‘wrong side of history’ on abortion

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., on Monday joined Democrats in their call for the Biden administration to ignore a Texas judge’s ruling on the abortion medication known as mifepristone, blasting the court decision as "unconstitutional."

Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled late Friday that the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval of mifepristone was unlawful, a decision that effectively banned the sale of the drug. But the issue became a legal quagmire when the Texas ruling was followed within hours by a conflicting court decision out of Washington state that ordered the FDA to maintain the drug’s availability.

On CNN Monday, Mace said she agrees with Democrats who say that Biden should ignore the Texas decision: "It's not up to us to decide as legislators … whether or not this is the right drug to use or not, No. 1, so I agree with ignoring it at this point."

Asked by Fox News Digital why she believes the FDA should brush off the Texas ban, Mace said the decision was unlawful because the judge based his decision on an invalid law.

FEDERAL JUDGE ISSUES DUELING DECISIONS ON ABORTION DRUG MIFEPRISTONE

"I disagree with the ruling," she said. "The judge used a law from 1873, which the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional in 1983. And so the entire basis for the ruling, I would argue, was unconstitutional in that regard."

She took it a step further in a separate interview with Fox News Digital and accused her fellow Republicans of being "on the wrong side of history" on abortion rights, clarifying that she is pro-life.

Mace declined to say whether she was worried about whether ignoring the Texas judge would set a dangerous legal precedent. But she did say these sorts of decisions are being made, pointing to Missouri officials in a county who passed an ordinance to break its ties with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) after claiming the body was unconstitutional.

AOC, DEM SENATOR CALL ON BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TO IGNORE ABORTION PILL RULING

"Look at Camden County in Missouri, I mean, they're ignoring the ATF, saying that they're unconstitutional," Mace said. "Both sides are fighting things that they believe are unconstitutional."

"Both sides fight things that they believe are unconstitutional," she added. "If it's OK for one side, it should be OK for both sides. And I think that's what we're missing here in this argument."

"The other thing that we're missing, too, is that [Republicans] are not on the right side of history, if we're going to take the extreme position on this issue, because the vast majority of Americans are not with us on that. They’re just not," the moderate GOP lawmaker said.

On Monday, the Biden administration stepped up its fight against the Texas ruling by filing a request for a stay on the order that’s backed by the FDA and Health & Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

Several Democrats spoke in favor of that decision. For example, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., both called on the Biden administration to ignore the abortion pill decision, which prompted criticism from Republican lawmakers over the left’s disregard for the judiciary.

AOC SAYS SHE MAY DRAFT CLARENCE THOMAS IMPEACHMENT ARTICLE IF NO ONE ELSE DOES

"The left is continuing its assault on the rule of law," Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital. "Whether it’s packing the Supreme Court, indicting the former president on flimsy charges or urging the administration to ignore a federal judge’s ruling, the left has made it clear they have contempt for the rule of law and care only about power."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, compared the Democrats leading the demand to the southern Democrats of the last century who were resisting the civil rights movement.

"Like Southern Democrats against civil rights in the 1950s, progressive Democrats today are demanding that a federal agency ignore a legal ruling they don’t like," the Texas conservative wrote on Twitter.