In a significant ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered a divided verdict against Planned Parenthood, concluding that Medicaid patients do not possess the right to sue in order to obtain non-abortion health care services from the organization’s medical providers. This decision allows South Carolina to terminate Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, creating repercussions not only for patients in that state but also for individuals across the nation, especially as Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration pursue efforts to defund non-abortion health care services provided by the largest abortion provider in the United States.
The ruling, which passed with a 6-3 vote and included dissent from all three liberal justices, overturned a previous lower-court decision. This earlier ruling had permitted Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a patient to challenge South Carolina's decision to cut off Medicaid funding due to the organization’s provision of abortion services. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, patients relying on Medicaid in South Carolina will be unable to access services at Planned Parenthood clinics, which include essential health care like birth control and cancer screenings.
The case, known as Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, emerged after South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster issued an order in 2018 directing all state agencies to cease public funding for any medical practices associated with abortion clinics. Historically, South Carolina had supported non-abortion-related health care services at Planned Parenthood through the joint federal and state Medicaid program, which aims to assist low-income individuals.
In a statement following the ruling, Governor McMaster declared victory, stating, "I have taken a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values." The case was initiated by Julie Edwards, a patient from Planned Parenthood’s Columbia location, who argued that her access to gynecologic and reproductive care was disrupted by the funding termination.
Conversely, Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, criticized the decision, asserting that it favored politicians over the rights of individuals seeking health care. Johnson emphasized, "The consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures," highlighting the potential impact on patient access to care.
The core issue addressed by the justices centered on whether the federal Medicaid Act permits individual Medicaid patients to sue for care from their chosen providers. The federal statute mandates that states participating in Medicaid ensure that “any individual” covered by Medicaid can receive care from any qualified and willing provider.
During the oral arguments, several justices expressed a desire for clarity regarding when a statute merely provides a benefit versus when it empowers individuals to sue to enforce that right. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained a high standard for permitting lawsuits against the government, often shielding public officials from liability.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch articulated that the question of whether individuals can sue to enforce certain rights involves complex public policy considerations. He concluded that Congress had not authorized private lawsuits for benefits in this context. "New rights for some mean new duties for others," Gorsuch noted, suggesting that litigation could divert government resources away from public services.
In contrast, the dissenting justices took issue with the majority’s interpretation of the statute. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, argued that the decision would result in real harm to Medicaid recipients, stripping them of their ability to choose their health care providers during vulnerable times.
The 4th Circuit Court had previously sided with Edwards and Planned Parenthood, asserting that South Carolina's actions infringed upon the rights of Medicaid patients by eliminating Planned Parenthood as a qualified provider. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III expressed concern over the implications of denying choice in medical providers for the less fortunate, emphasizing the importance of the Medicaid Act in correcting this imbalance.
As the debate over funding for Planned Parenthood continues, the recent Supreme Court ruling underscores ongoing tensions between state policies and federal health care provisions, with potential ramifications for patients across the country.
