{"id":381,"date":"2026-06-12T17:06:15","date_gmt":"2026-06-12T17:06:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381"},"modified":"2026-06-12T17:06:15","modified_gmt":"2026-06-12T17:06:15","slug":"the-supreme-court-invented-a-special-legal-rule-solely-to-screw-planned-parenthood","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court invented a special legal rule solely to screw Planned Parenthood"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

About a year ago, the Supreme Court handed down a baffling decision in (2025). In Medina<\/em>, South Carolina committed an obvious violation of federal Medicaid law, but the Court\u2019s Republican majority seemed to bend over backward to prevent the patients affected by this legal violation from suing to enforce their rights. Among other things, the Court\u2019s opinion in Medina<\/em> was at odds with a decision the justices handed down just two years earlier in (2023).<\/p>\n

Read more The \u201cclean energy\u201d mine that could put one of America\u2019s most pristine wilderness areas at risk<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

As I wrote at the time, the best explanation for Medina<\/em> was not legal; it was political. South Carolina broke federal law specifically because it illegally cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. The Republican justices appear to have bent the rules to ensure that an abortion provider would be defunded.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed down a new opinion in , which only adds to the mystery about why Medina<\/em> came down the way it did. The facts of FS Credit<\/em> are quite different from the issues in Medina<\/em> \u2014 FS Credit<\/em> is a securities law case asking when investors may sue investment funds, while Medina<\/em> concerned when patients may sue states for violating Medicaid law. But the legal issues in FS Credit <\/em>and Medina<\/em> are very similar. They both involve a legal doctrine known as \u201cimplied causes of action.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Although Medina<\/em> is the Court\u2019s most recent case (prior to FS Credit<\/em>) that deals with implied causes of action, the FS Credit<\/em> decision does not cite Medina<\/em> anywhere. Instead, it quotes heavily from decisions that the Court refused to follow in Medina<\/em>. And it explicitly embraces a legal rule that the Court seemed to reject in Medina<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The rules governing implied causes of action are complicated enough to reduce even experienced lawyers to tears. But, if you bear with me, it will be difficult to avoid a simple conclusion: The Court appears to be manipulating these rules to achieve outcomes preferred by the Republican justices and the anti-abortion movement.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

What is an implied cause of action?<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Justice Amy Coney Barrett\u2019s opinion in FS Credit<\/em> begins with a simple declarative sentence: \u201c.\u201d Not all federal laws may be enforced through lawsuits, and not all people who may want to sue under a particular federal law are allowed to do so.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In some cases, a federal law explicitly states that it authorizes private lawsuits against violators of that law, or it states who is allowed to bring those suits. In other cases, a right to sue may be implied from statutory text that does not explicitly provide for such suits. These implicit rights to sue are known as \u201cimplied causes of action.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Before Medina<\/em>, the question of whether a particular federal law creates an implied cause of action was governed by the Court\u2019s decision in Gonzaga University v. Doe<\/em> (2002), which held that \u201cfor a statute to create private rights [to sue], its text must be phrased in terms of the persons benefited.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Thus, for example, a hypothetical statute stating that \u201cno sweaty person may be denied access to a shower\u201d may be enforced through private lawsuits, because that law is phrased in terms of who benefits from it (sweaty people). A similar statute which provides that \u201cstates may not impede access to showers\u201d would not be enforceable through private lawsuits, because that statute lacks the person-focused language demanded by Gonzaga<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Prior to the Medina<\/em> decision in 2025, the Court repeatedly reaffirmed Gonzaga\u2019<\/em>s rule. It did so most recently in Talevski<\/em>, which held that a federal law creates an implied cause of action when it is \u201c\u2018phrased in terms of the persons benefited\u2019 and contains \u2018rights-creating,\u2019 individual-centric language with an \u2018unmistakable focus on the benefited class.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Under the Gonzaga<\/em> framework, Medina<\/em> should have been an open-and-shut case. The case involved a federal law that permits Medicaid patients to choose their health providers. South Carolina violated this law by refusing to allow Medicaid patients to choose Planned Parenthood as their health provider. Here is the relevant statutory text:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

A State plan for medical assistance must \u2026 provide that \u2026 any individual eligible for medical assistance<\/strong> (including drugs) may obtain such assistance<\/strong> from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required (including an organization which provides such services, or arranges for their availability, on a prepayment basis), who undertakes to provide him<\/strong> such services.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n

This law contains the very kind of \u201cindividual-centric language\u201d demanded by cases like Gonzaga<\/em> and Talevski<\/em>. It extends a right to \u201cany individual,\u201d providing that these individuals \u201cmay obtain\u201d medical care from their chosen provider. It also concludes with a pronoun (\u201chim\u201d) that refers back to the individuals who benefit from the law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

And yet, in Medina<\/em>, the six Republican justices rendered this statute unenforceable. And they did so in an opinion that didn\u2019t even quote the relevant legal rule. The words \u201cphrased in terms of the persons benefitted\u201d appear nowhere in Justice Neil Gorsuch\u2019s majority opinion.<\/p>\n

Read more The \u201cclean energy\u201d mine that could put one of America\u2019s most pristine wilderness areas at risk<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Gorsuch\u2019s Medina<\/em> opinion is very difficult to parse, but it appears to create a new rule establishing that no statute may create an implied cause of action unless that statute includes the magic word \u201cright\u201d \u2014 as in: an individual\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

FS Credit<\/em> relies on the same Gonzaga<\/em> rule that the Court seemed to abandon in Medina<\/em><\/h2>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Barrett\u2019s majority opinion in FS Credit<\/em>, however, offers no hint that Medina<\/em> even happened. Barrett does not at any point suggest that a statute must use any specific magic words in order to authorize private lawsuits. Instead, it relies on the pre-Medina<\/em> framework established by cases like Gonzaga<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

FS Credit<\/em> holds that \u201cto create a private right, a statute must use \u2018rights-creating language\u2019 aimed at protecting \u2018a particular class of persons.\u2019\u201d It then , which states that \u201cstatutes create private rights when they are \u2018phrased in terms of the persons benefited.\u2019\u201d So Gonzaga<\/em> is back, baby.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But, if the Court wanted to dispel the impression that Medina <\/em>was a one-off decision that simply came up with an excuse to deny relief to abortion providers and their patients, Barrett\u2019s FS Credit <\/em>opinion needed to explain why the new rule that the Court seemed to apply in Medina<\/em> does not apply in FS Credit<\/em>. Instead, Barrett\u2019s opinion does not include a single citation to Medina<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

One possibility is that the two cases are different because Medina<\/em> involved Medicaid, which is a federal spending program, while FS Credit<\/em> involves a statute regulating private businesses. Gorsuch\u2019s says that \u201cspending-power statutes like Medicaid are especially unlikely\u201d to contain implied causes of action. So maybe the magic word rule that Gorsuch appeared to rely on in Medina<\/em> only applies to Medicaid and other cases involving government spending programs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But Talevski<\/em>, the Supreme Court case decided two years before Medina<\/em>, didn\u2019t just reject the argument that there are different rules for federal spending programs; it . The losing party in Talevski<\/em>, that decision explained, \u201curges us to reject decades of precedent\u201d and to \u201crewrite\u201d a key federal law to exempt federal spending programs from the Gonzaga <\/em>rule. But Talevski<\/em> \u201creject[s]\u201d this \u201cinvitation to reimagine Congress\u2019s handiwork (and our precedent interpreting it).\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Another possibility is that Medina<\/em> is different from FS Credit <\/em>because Medina<\/em> involved a \u201cSection 1983\u201d lawsuit \u2014 a lawsuit brought under the federal law permitting individuals to bring civil rights claims against state governments and state officials \u2014 and FS Credit<\/em> does not. Gorsuch\u2019s Medina<\/em> opinion describes the specific issue before his Court in that case as \u201cwhether the plaintiffs before us may maintain a \u00a7 1983 suit to enforce Medicaid\u2019s any-qualified-provider provision \u201c<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But the problem with this distinction is that Gonzaga<\/em> \u2014 the precedent behind the Court\u2019s reasoning in FS Credit <\/em>\u2014 was itself a Section 1983 case. So, for as long as Gonzaga<\/em> has been the law, the Court has held that its rule applies to cases brought under Section 1983. Medina<\/em> is the only exception.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Perhaps there is some other way to distinguish between Medina<\/em> and FS Credit<\/em>. But, again, the Court did not provide such an explanation in the FS Credit<\/em> opinion.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

And, without such an explanation, it\u2019s hard to escape the same conclusion that I reached a year ago, when Medina <\/em>was first handed down. Medina<\/em> was not decided in good faith. The actual holding of Medina<\/em> is that abortion providers and their patients cannot enforce their rights, because the Republican justices say so.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The central rule in any nation governed by the rule of law is that similar cases must be treated similarly, regardless of whether a group that individual judges dislike \u2014 or even view as morally repugnant \u2014 benefits from that rule. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 1989 essay, \u201cwhen, in writing for the majority of the Court, I adopt a general rule. \u2026 I not only constrain lower courts, I constrain myself as well.\u201d Because \u201cif the next case should have such different facts that my political or policy preferences regarding the outcome are quite the opposite, I will be unable to indulge those preferences.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Medina<\/em> fails the Scalia test. There cannot be a special carve out for abortion providers or abortion patients that denies them the same right to sue enjoyed by any other litigant.<\/p>\n

Read more The next AI safety fight may actually be about DNA<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

hi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

See More:<\/span><\/p>\n
    \n
  • Abortion<\/li>\n
  • Policy<\/li>\n
  • Politics<\/li>\n
  • Supreme Court<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    A new SCOTUS decision raises new doubts about whether a decision against a major abortion provider had any basis in law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":380,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-381","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-interesting"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Supreme Court invented a special legal rule solely to screw Planned Parenthood - American Living Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Supreme Court invented a special legal rule solely to screw Planned Parenthood - American Living Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A new SCOTUS decision raises new doubts about whether a decision against a major abortion provider had any basis in law.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Living Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-12T17:06:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8\"},\"headline\":\"The Supreme Court invented a special legal rule solely to screw Planned Parenthood\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-12T17:06:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381\"},\"wordCount\":1596,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/49dfcf0815c07a24430e824c6372ee4c.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Interesting\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381\",\"name\":\"The Supreme Court invented a special legal rule solely to screw Planned Parenthood - American Living Report\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/49dfcf0815c07a24430e824c6372ee4c.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-12T17:06:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/49dfcf0815c07a24430e824c6372ee4c.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/06\\\/49dfcf0815c07a24430e824c6372ee4c.webp\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":624},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?p=381#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Supreme Court invented a special legal rule solely to screw Planned Parenthood\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Living Report\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanlivingreport.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Supreme Court invented a special legal rule solely to screw Planned Parenthood - American Living Report","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Supreme Court invented a special legal rule solely to screw Planned Parenthood - American Living Report","og_description":"A new SCOTUS decision raises new doubts about whether a decision against a major abortion provider had any basis in law.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381","og_site_name":"American Living Report","article_published_time":"2026-06-12T17:06:15+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8"},"headline":"The Supreme Court invented a special legal rule solely to screw Planned Parenthood","datePublished":"2026-06-12T17:06:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381"},"wordCount":1596,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/49dfcf0815c07a24430e824c6372ee4c.webp","articleSection":["Interesting"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381","url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381","name":"The Supreme Court invented a special legal rule solely to screw Planned Parenthood - American Living Report","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/49dfcf0815c07a24430e824c6372ee4c.webp","datePublished":"2026-06-12T17:06:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/49dfcf0815c07a24430e824c6372ee4c.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/49dfcf0815c07a24430e824c6372ee4c.webp","width":1200,"height":624},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?p=381#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Supreme Court invented a special legal rule solely to screw Planned Parenthood"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/","name":"American Living Report","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/#\/schema\/person\/7b970e3bc484fe2e26860a4380d70de8","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanlivingreport.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=381"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/380"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=381"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=381"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanlivingreport.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=381"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}