The Supreme Court could soon strike a blow to America’s largest abortion provider.
Amid growing concerns about the quality of care at Planned Parenthood facilities and the fact that taxpayer funding is going to facilities that provide abortions, the Supreme Court could effectively decide whether states can withhold taxpayer dollars from the organization in an upcoming case.
After South Carolina disqualified Planned Parenthood from receiving taxpayer funding under its Medicaid program, a federal district court forced the state to restore the funding.
Now, attorneys from the Christian law firm Alliance Defending Freedom are representing the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services in a case that could decide whether states can withhold such funding from providers like Planned Parenthood that fail to meet the state’s qualifications.
Oral arguments for the case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, are set for April 2.
Medicaid is the taxpayer-funded, joint federal and state program that provides health insurance for low-income individuals.
“What’s at stake in this case is whether or not the American people can be forced to fund activist organizations like Planned Parenthood that perform abortions and distribute dangerous gender transition drugs to minors,” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Chris Schandevel told The Daily Signal.
The narrower legal question is whether Medicaid provisions give individual beneficiaries a private right to choose a specific provider, regardless of whether that provider was disqualified for coverage by the state, and whether the individual can sue to vindicate that right. In this case, Medicaid beneficiary Julie Edwards was denied coverage after obtaining care at Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.
The Medicaid Act does not allow the state to terminate funding to a specific provider, Planned Parenthood argues, because it gives an individual the right to obtain care from any “qualified and willing provider.”
“As both courts below found and as petitioner no longer contests, South Carolina violated Ms. Edwards’ right to obtain care from the provider of her choice,” Planned Parenthood said in its brief. “The only question before this court is whether Ms. Edwards can do anything about it—in particular, whether she can sue … to vindicate this right.”
The case stems from two executive actions from South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, according to a source familiar with the matter. In one order, McMaster directed in 2017 that state agencies cease providing state or local funds to any physician or professional medical practice affiliated with or operating concurrently with an abortion clinic.
The second order in 2018 directed the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services to end Medicaid’s coverage of abortion clinics in favor of putting taxpayer dollars toward other family planning services that do not offer abortions.
Alliance Defending Freedom submitted its petition in June 2024, but the case is now coming before the court amid questions about the quality of Planned Parenthood’s care after a New York Times report in February.
The majority of the hundreds of millions of dollars Planned Parenthood receives in donations each year goes to legal and political expenses rather than improving the care provided at its clinics, the report said. As a result, The Times reported patient complaints of malpractice have landed the abortion provider in a tangle of lawsuits.
In addition to South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas have blocked Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid payments. Pending a favorable decision from the court, more states could follow suit.
“We expect Planned Parenthood to have a really difficult time identifying any language in the Medicaid Act itself to support their claim that individuals have a right to drag the state into federal court to force the state to reinstate funding for a disqualified provider like Planned Parenthood,” Schandevel said.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and its legal counsel did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by press time.
