U.S. Supreme Court Upholds South Carolina’s Move to Defund Planned Parenthood -RT
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of South Carolina, allowing the state to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. The 6-3 ruling, issued on Thursday, marks a significant victory for Republican-led efforts to limit public funding for the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider, potentially setting a precedent for other states to follow suit. The decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, overturned a lower court ruling that had blocked South Carolina’s attempt to terminate Planned Parenthood South Atlantic’s participation in the state’s Medicaid program, citing the organization’s provision of abortion services.
The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, originated in 2018 when South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster issued an executive order directing the state’s Department of Health and Human Services to deem abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, unqualified to provide family planning services under Medicaid. This move was part of a broader strategy by conservative state leaders to restrict public funds from flowing to organizations associated with abortion, even for non-abortion-related services such as contraception, cancer screenings, and STI testing. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which operates clinics in Charleston and Columbia, serves hundreds of Medicaid patients annually, providing critical healthcare services to low-income individuals.
In response to the executive order, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, along with Medicaid patient Julie Edwards, filed a lawsuit against South Carolina under an 1871 federal civil rights law that allows individuals to challenge illegal acts by state officials. The plaintiffs argued that the state’s action violated Medicaid recipients’ rights to choose their preferred qualified healthcare provider, a right they described as “deeply personal.” A federal judge initially ruled in their favor, finding that South Carolina’s decision infringed on Edwards’ ability to select Planned Parenthood as her provider. This ruling was upheld by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024, prompting South Carolina to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, supported by its six conservative justices, centered on the question of whether Medicaid recipients have the right to sue to enforce the provision of the Medicaid Act that guarantees access to any qualified and willing provider. Justice Gorsuch argued that private enforcement of federal statutes through lawsuits is not always permissible and requires clear congressional authorization. He emphasized that allowing such lawsuits could divert state resources from social services to litigation, stating, “Private enforcement does not always benefit the public, not least because it requires states to divert money and attention away from social services and toward litigation.” Gorsuch further noted that the decision to create enforceable statutory rights is a matter of public policy best left to elected representatives, not the judiciary.
The court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented, arguing that the ruling undermines the rights of Medicaid recipients. In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that the decision “is likely to result in tangible harm to real people,” as it strips Medicaid patients of their ability to enforce their right to choose their healthcare provider. She described this right as a “deeply personal freedom,” particularly for vulnerable populations who rely on Medicaid for essential care. The dissent warned that the ruling could embolden states to exclude providers for reasons unrelated to medical qualifications, potentially limiting access to care for low-income individuals.
The ruling has sparked polarized reactions. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson celebrated the decision, framing it as a victory for state sovereignty. “This is about who runs South Carolina—our elected leaders or out-of-state activists and unelected judges,” Wilson said. “We’re glad the court got it right.” Governor McMaster echoed this sentiment, stating, “Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values—and today, we are finally victorious.”
On the other hand, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Alexis McGill Johnson condemned the ruling, warning of its broader implications. “Today, the Supreme Court once again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted healthcare provider and making your own healthcare decisions,” she said. Johnson argued that the decision is part of a long-term strategy by lawmakers to “shut down Planned Parenthood and ban abortion nationwide,” even as the organization provides critical non-abortion services like birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing.
The case has drawn significant attention due to its implications for healthcare access and the ongoing national debate over abortion. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending the constitutional right to abortion, several Republican-led states have implemented near-total abortion bans or, as in South Carolina, restrictions after six weeks of pregnancy. Federal law already prohibits Medicaid funds from being used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or life-threatening circumstances. However, Planned Parenthood’s clinics in South Carolina provide a range of services unrelated to abortion, including physical exams, pregnancy testing, and screenings for cancer and diabetes, making the state’s exclusion of the organization particularly contentious.
This is not the first time the Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic case has reached the Supreme Court. In 2020, the court declined to hear South Carolina’s appeal at an earlier stage. In 2023, it directed the 4th Circuit to reconsider its ruling in light of a separate decision involving nursing home residents’ rights to sue under federal programs. The Supreme Court’s latest ruling aligns with its recent trend of setting a high bar for private lawsuits against government actions, emphasizing the need for explicit congressional intent to create enforceable rights.
The decision is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Legal experts suggest it could pave the way for other Republican-led states, such as Texas, Mississippi, and Missouri, to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs without fear of legal challenges from patients. The conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented South Carolina, argued that states should have the authority to determine which providers are qualified for Medicaid funding. “Pro-life states like South Carolina should be free to determine that Planned Parenthood and other entities that peddle abortion are not qualified to receive taxpayer funding through Medicaid,” said John Bursch, a lawyer for the group.
For Medicaid patients in South Carolina, the ruling could limit access to care at Planned Parenthood’s Charleston and Columbia clinics, which serve hundreds of low-income individuals annually. Critics argue that this could exacerbate the state’s existing healthcare disparities, particularly for women and low-income communities. Supporters of the ruling, however, contend that alternative providers are available and that public funds should not support organizations associated with abortion.
As the nation continues to grapple with the fallout of the Roe v. Wade reversal, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the ongoing tension between state authority, individual rights, and access to healthcare. While South Carolina celebrates the ruling as a victory for its values, advocates for reproductive healthcare warn that it could set a dangerous precedent, restricting access to essential services for some of the country’s most vulnerable populations.