The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge from Planned Parenthood to a South Carolina executive order that redirected federal funding from the abortion giant. The 6-3 decision along ideological lines effectively paves the way for pro-life states to protect their taxpayers from bankrolling abortion facilities.
The high bench’s Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic ruling ultimately reversed a decision from the 4th Circuit, which agreed with a district court that South Carolina violated state residents’ civil rights by excluding Planned Parenthood from a list of healthcare providers.
At South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster’s direction, the Palmetto State sought to redirect Medicaid funds that would normally end up in Planned Parenthood’s pockets to the plethora of facilities focused on more comprehensive healthcare than ending life in the womb.
The nation’s largest abortion business sued in an attempt to save its flow of federal tax dollars, which no doubt contributes to Planned Parenthood’s quest to end unborn lives, dispense castrating drugs to kids, reportedly traffic baby body parts, enable abusers, allegedly perform unlicensed procedures, violate health and safety standards, oppose free speech, and risk mothers’ lives in the process.
Planned Parenthood’s representation tried to claim during oral arguments in April that Medicaid recipients have the same “individual dignity and individual economy” as those who are privately insured and can choose who treats them.
South Carolina’s legal team, backed by 18 states, the federal government, several members of Congress, practicing South Carolina medical practitioners, and pro-life activists, countered by noting that private insurance companies determine which doctors are within the network. As a result, they argued to the court that South Carolina “should be free” to honor a majority of Americans’ opposition to taxpayer-funded abortions by choosing which providers get those hard-earned dollars.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, penned a dissenting opinion claiming the statute in question is“compulsory,” has “individual centric terminology,” and uses “language classically associated with establishing rights.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch argued in the majority opinion, however, that the section Planned Parenthood tried to wield against South Carolina “does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights” required to sue the state for its use of Medicaid funds.
He noted that while Congress “knows how to give a grantee clear and unambiguous notice that, if it accepts federal funds, it may face private suits asserting an individual right to choose a medical provider,” it did not for the particular law Planned Parenthood tried to use against South Carolina.
“Deciding whether to permit private enforcement poses delicate policy questions involving competing costs and benefits — decisions for elected representatives, not judges,” the ruling syllabus stated.
Gorsuch agreed, writing that “private enforcement does not always benefit the public” because it forces states to “divert money and attention away from social services and toward litigation.”
“And balancing those costs and benefits poses a question of public policy that, under our system of government, only Congress may answer,” Gorsuch determined.
SCOTUS’ conclusion officially sends the case back to the lower courts for further action. In the meantime, South Carolina is free to move forward with plans to make Planned Parenthood “go fund themselves” instead of using Medicaid dollars to fuel its abortion obsession.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
