In a case that could play a part in finally defunding the abortion giant Planned Parenthood, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on whether or not the state of South Carolina can block abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds for non-abortion services.
Federal law already prohibits Medicaid funds from being used for abortions in most cases, and Planned Parenthood argues that the case is therefore not really about abortion. But the state, which is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), argues that “even tax dollars that are directed toward Planned Parenthood’s ‘non-abortion services’ free up funding for the organization to do more pro-abortion politicking and perform more abortions.”
The issue has been working its way through various federal courts since 2018, when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order stating that abortion providers are not qualified to receive Medicaid funding in the state. His order was consistent with state law that prohibits the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions.
Planned Parenthood sued, and a federal district court and the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals both issued preliminary decisions in favor of Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court declined to review the case, and in 2020, the district court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the state from excluding Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds. It concluded that Medicaid recipients have a right to choose their preferred provider. The 4th Circuit upheld that decision, and the state appealed to the Supreme Court.
Then, in 2023, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a similar case and, in light of that decision, sent the South Carolina case back to the 4th Circuit to be reconsidered. But again that court ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, so the state has appealed once more to the Supreme Court.
During today’s oral arguments of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, John Bursch, ADF senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy, represented the state before the Supreme Court.
While several of the justices noted that individuals receiving Medicaid have a right under Medicaid’s statute to choose a qualified health care provider, Bursch argued that states have the right to choose what is considered a “qualified” provider.
In his closing remarks, Bursch said: “Justice Sotomayor at one point called it a privilege of choosing your doctor. The word privilege doesn’t appear in the statute. Justice Jackson called it a free choice of provider provision. The words free and choice don’t appear anywhere in the statute. My friend, Ms. Saki, said the provision is mandatory because the state must do these things. That’s not what it says. It says that the plan must provide these things in a substantial compliance context.”
A recent poll found 57% of Americans either oppose or strongly oppose the use of tax dollars for abortions. Overwhelmingly, evangelical Christians view abortion as the killing of an innocent human life, citing the Biblical commandment against murder and God’s foreknowledge in creating each human being with purpose and uniqueness (Psalm 139 and Ephesians 2:10).
The court’s decision is expected by the end of June.
