Missouri’s Republican attorney general is trying to get the medical records of Planned Parenthood patients who’ve had abortions, officials who oversee clinics in Kansas City and St. Louis said in legal filings.

The fight over the subpoenas is playing out in a lawsuit filed last year by Planned Parenthood Great Plains, the abortion provider’s affiliate for Kansas City, and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, the affiliate for St. Louis. Planned Parenthood officials argue that the state’s restrictions violate an amendment to the Missouri Constitution narrowly approved by voters in November to protect abortion rights.

The Missouri attorney general’s office issued subpoenas starting in late August to two employees of the Kansas City Planned Parenthood affiliate, a physician contracting with it, and two former board members of the St. Louis-area Planned Parenthood affiliate, according to Planned Parenthood court filings last month. One filing seeking to quash the subpoenas said the attorney general demanded patient records, reports on adverse events and communications about patient care, along with clinical protocols, equipment maintenance records, contract documents and records related to compliance with state requirements.

“Despite the Missouri Attorney General’s blatant attempts to overturn the will of the people, all patients expect and have the right for their medical records to be private,” the two affiliates said in a joint statement Tuesday. “Politicians have no place in the exam room with patients and their medical providers.”

Attorney General Catherine Hanaway’s office did not immediately respond to an email Tuesday requesting comment. But in a filing in June, the state questioned Planned Parenthood officials’ repeated statements that “abortion rarely involves medical complications” and that state requirements do not improve patients’ health.

“The purpose of litigation is to ‘ascertain the truth,’” the filing said.

Abortion policy has been in flux nationally since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to enforce bans. Twelve states now ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with limited exception, and women now are more likely to cross state lines for abortions or to obtain them via pills shipped in by prescribers elsewhere.

A multiyear legal battle has seen Missouri swing back and forth between banning and allowing most abortions. Before last year’s ballot question, the state had a near-total ban.

In July, Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jerri Zhang, in Kansas City, blocked enforcement of many of the restrictions while the lawsuit proceeds, including licensing requirements and a 72-hour waiting period for abortions.

Planned Parenthood clinics are doing procedural abortions in St. Louis, Kansas City and Columbia, home to the University of Missouri’s main campus. Planned Parenthood Great Plains also has two clinics performing abortions on the Kansas side of the Kansas City metropolitan area.

Medication abortions remain on hold in Missouri while Planned Parenthood officials wrangle with the state over abortion regulations.

Last year’s measure amended the state constitution to guarantee a right to abortion until fetal viability, generally considered sometime past 21 weeks of pregnancy.

The Republican-led Legislature wants to return to a ban, with exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. It approved a proposed constitutional amendment in May to do that, but the explanation for voters that lawmakers wanted on the ballot in 2026 became tied up in another lawsuit, filed in Cole County Circuit Court the state capital of Jefferson City by a doctor who championed last year’s ballot question.

Cole County Judge Daniel Green ruled last month that summary originally written by lawmakers was unfair and failed to tell voters they would be repealing last year’s measure. He ordered Missouri’s secretary of state to rewrite it.

The revision Green approved Tuesday notes that the new measure would “Repeal Article I, section 36, approved in 2024,” but it doesn’t explain what that entails.

___

Associated Press journalist David A. Lieb also contributed from Jefferson City, Missouri.

If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded “public benefit” programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court.

The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state’s emergency healthcare system, the officials said.

Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said.

In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate “chilling effect” on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader “ripple effects” — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as “a critical safety net” for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers.

“Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,” Jaime-Milehan said.

Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote.

Tony Thurmond, California’s superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the “chilling effect” from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to “seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.”

Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states’ lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations.

The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants.

The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”

Trump’s order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain “life or safety” programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions.

The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.”

California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law.

“We’re not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we’re talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues.

The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out.

Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens.

“Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,” she wrote.

Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county’s “safety-net” care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities.

“But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,” Chawla wrote. “This will exacerbate their health conditions.”

Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county’s residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county’s children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country.

The administration’s changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote.

“The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara’s emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,” Hansen wrote.

The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court.

In response to the states’ motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it.

They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies “merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,” and “restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.”

The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.

Dealerships’ personnel expenses have escalated as they keep increasing their technician compensation rates and offering bonuses to attract new employees. Yet, first-year turnover rates for technicians continue to climb. For dealerships, technician staffing is the new battleground.

Many dealers and automotive groups are attempting to “grow their own” — implementing their own technician training and development programs. This can be a very worthwhile approach, though it presents challenges — namely, a significant investment of time, finances and staff to develop and implement such an in-house training model. Then, once the model is in place, the task of recruiting future technicians remains.

Indeed, on-the-job training and development — apprenticeships — are an answer. I would argue they are the answer. Yet running an on-site apprentice program while also running a dealership is like running two businesses at once.

In many markets, the shortage has expanded well beyond the point where individual dealers can cobble together in-house apprenticeships. A more holistic approach is needed, and a growing number of dealers are discovering a solution by hiring independently operated auto tech apprenticeship providers that focus solely on addressing the shortage of auto technicians. It’s a turnkey approach that includes managing apprentice recruitment, conducting candidate interviews and orientation, providing soft skills training and managing compensation — as well as providing hands-on education and training for each apprentice. And, importantly, each apprentice is matched with a nearby dealer for full-time employment.

Research shows that employees who participate in apprenticeship programs are more likely to remain with the company after completing the program.

Reach Out

Don’t hesitate to reach out to us to discuss your specific needs. Our team is ready and eager to provide you with tailored solutions that align with your business goals and enhance your digital marketing efforts. We look forward to helping you grow your business online.

Our Services:

Blog Post Writing
We do well-researched, timely, and engaging blog posts that resonate with your clientele, positioning you as a thought leader in your domain.

Content Writing
Beyond articles and content for blogs, we delve into comprehensive content pieces like eBooks, and case studies, tailored to showcase your expertise.
Website Content Writing: First impressions matter. Our content ensures your website reflects the professionalism, dedication, and expertise you bring to the table.

Social Media Management
In today’s interconnected world, your online presence extends to social platforms. We help you navigate this terrain, ensuring your voice is consistently represented and heard, we post on your social media account or ours, or both, depending on your needs.

WordPress Website Maintenance
Your digital office should be as polished and functional as your physical one. We ensure your WordPress site remains updated, secure, and user-friendly.
For more information, ad placements in our blog network for attorneys, real estate agents, auto repair shops, and most other businesses as well as article requests, social media management, or listings on our top 10 best websites, reach out to us at canyoncrestguide@gmail.com

Warm regards,

The Auto Repair in Riverside Team