• About
  • Contact
Thursday, June 26, 2025
The US Inquirer
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Home
  • National
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Tech
  • Crime
  • World
PRICING
SUBSCRIBE
  • Home
  • National
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Tech
  • Crime
  • World
No Result
View All Result
The US Inquirer
No Result
View All Result
Home Politics

Supreme Court lets South Carolina block Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood

by Melissa Quinn
June 26, 2025
Reading Time: 5 mins read
0
Supreme Court lets South Carolina block Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood

RELATED POSTS

White House pushes “big, beautiful bill” as GOP faces roadblocks in Senate

White House says no Iran meetings currently scheduled

Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Planned Parenthood’s challenge to South Carolina’s attempt to bar the organization from participating in its Medicaid program, clearing the way for the state to strip the organization of Medicaid funds.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic to find that Planned Parenthood and a patient cannot sue the state of South Carolina under federal civil rights law to enforce a provision of the Medicaid Act that aims to ensure a beneficiary can obtain medical care from the provider of their choosing. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the court. The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, were in dissent.

The court’s conservative majority reversed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that allowed Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit against state officials to move forward and prevented South Carolina from excluding the organization from its Medicaid program. 

The ruling is likely to pave the way for more states to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs, a move that anti-abortion rights have been pushing for several years.

“[T]he decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy. New rights for some mean new duties for others. And private enforcement actions, meritorious or not, can force governments to direct money away from public services and spend it instead on litigation,” Gorsuch wrote. “The job of resolving how best to weigh those competing costs and benefits belongs to the people’s elected representatives, not unelected judges charged with applying the law as they find it.”

In a dissent joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, Jackson accused the court’s majority of weakening landmark civil rights protections that Congress enacted after the Civil War, which allow citizen to seek redress in federal court for alleged deprivation of their rights.

“[T]oday’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people,” Jackson wrote. “At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians — and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country — of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’ The court today disregards Congress’s express desire to prevent that very outcome.”

The White House applauded the Supreme Court’s decision, with spokesman Harrison Fields calling it a “major victory for common sense” that “underscores the president’s longstanding position that abortion policies should be determined by the states and that taxpayers should never be responsible for funding elective abortions.”

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

The question before the court was a narrow one, involving whether a Medicaid beneficiary could sue to enforce their ability to seek care from the qualified and willing provider of their choosing, known as the any-qualified-provider requirement.

The legal wrangling over South Carolina’s attempt to stop public dollars from going to a Planned Parenthood affiliate in the state began in 2018, four years before the Supreme Court overturned Roe. v. Wade. 

In South Carolina, abortion is banned after six weeks gestation, and Planned Parenthood provides abortion services outside of Medicaid only as allowed under state law. Additionally, federal law bars Medicaid from paying for abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

But seven years ago, South Carolina’s Republican governor, Henry McMaster, issued an executive order that directed the state’s health department to deem abortion providers unqualified to provide family-planning services under Medicaid and terminate their enrollment agreements.

In response, the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services notified Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that its provider agreements were being cancelled because it was no longer qualified to provide medical services to Medicaid beneficiaries. The affiliate has clinics in Charleston and Columbia, and offers prenatal and postpartum services, along with physical exams and screenings for cancer and other health conditions.

In the wake of the state’s decision to boot Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program, Julie Edwards, a patient who received medical services from the organization, and Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit under federal civil rights law to challenge the move.

Edwards argued that South Carolina’s termination of Planned Parenthood’s agreement violated her right to choose her provider under the Medicaid Act.

A federal district judge ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, finding that South Carolina likely violated the any-qualified-provider provision when it excluded Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ultimately allowed the suit to proceed and prevented South Carolina from keeping Planned Parenthood out of its Medicaid program.

The dispute before the Supreme Court did not involve abortion, but it came to the high court amid a push by several Republican-led states to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. 

Paige Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, criticized the ruling but said the clinic will continue to offering care in South Carolina, including to Medicaid beneficiaries.

“Today’s decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a health care crisis,” she said in a statement. “Twice, justices of this Court denied to even hear this case because Gov. McMaster’s intent is clear: weaponize anti-abortion sentiment to deprive communities with low incomes of basic health care.”

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, warned that attacks on the organization will likely continue and put at risk patients’ access to health care services.

“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 health care provider and making your own health care decisions,” she said in a statement. “And the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures. Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more. And right now, lawmakers in Congress are trying to ‘defund’ Planned Parenthood as part of their long-term goal to shut down Planned Parenthood and ban abortion nationwide.”

More from CBS News

Melissa Quinn

Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.

Share6Tweet4Share1

Melissa Quinn

Related Posts

White House pushes “big, beautiful bill” as GOP faces roadblocks in Senate
Politics

White House pushes “big, beautiful bill” as GOP faces roadblocks in Senate

June 26, 2025
White House says no Iran meetings currently scheduled
Politics

White House says no Iran meetings currently scheduled

June 26, 2025
State Dept. layoffs could start as soon as Friday, as high court decision looms
Politics

State Dept. layoffs could start as soon as Friday, as high court decision looms

June 26, 2025
Pentagon officials defend success of U.S. strikes on Iran amid intel leak
Politics

Pentagon officials defend success of U.S. strikes on Iran amid intel leak

June 26, 2025
Too sick to work, some Americans worry Trump’s bill will strip their insurance
Politics

Too sick to work, some Americans worry Trump’s bill will strip their insurance

June 26, 2025
L.A. immigration detention facilities a “ticking time bomb,” immigration lawyer says
Politics

L.A. immigration detention facilities a “ticking time bomb,” immigration lawyer says

June 25, 2025
Next Post
White House says no Iran meetings currently scheduled

White House says no Iran meetings currently scheduled

White House pushes “big, beautiful bill” as GOP faces roadblocks in Senate

White House pushes "big, beautiful bill" as GOP faces roadblocks in Senate

Recommended Stories

Trump cuts Canada trip short due to “what’s going on in the Middle East”

Trump cuts Canada trip short due to “what’s going on in the Middle East”

June 17, 2025
The impact of self-deportations on families

The impact of self-deportations on families

June 24, 2025
Appeals court rules Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law is unconstitutional

Appeals court rules Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law is unconstitutional

June 20, 2025

Popular Stories

  • Satellite photos show aftermath of U.S. strikes on Iran nuclear sites

    Satellite photos show aftermath of U.S. strikes on Iran nuclear sites

    15 shares
    Share 6 Tweet 4
  • Pentagon reveals new details on Iran strikes, named Operation Midnight Hammer

    15 shares
    Share 6 Tweet 4
  • Trump announces Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire

    15 shares
    Share 6 Tweet 4
  • Trump says Iran-Israel ceasefire in effect after early violations

    15 shares
    Share 6 Tweet 4
  • iPhone 15 Pro Review: first impressions of Apple’s newest flagship smartphone

    15 shares
    Share 6 Tweet 4
The US Inquirer

© 2023 The US Inquirer

Navigate Site

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Ethics
  • Fact Checking and Corrections Policies
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • ISSN: 2832-0522

Follow Us

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • National
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Tech
  • Crime
  • World

© 2023 The US Inquirer

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?