Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic—a case centered on South Carolina’s order to defund Planned Parenthood by removing it from the state’s Medicaid program. Abortion advocates sued, arguing that the state of South Carolina did not have the right to exclude abortion providers from their list of qualified providers.
The court will be deciding whether the “any qualified provider” provision in the Medicaid Act, as passed by Congress, gives Medicaid beneficiaries a right to choose a specific provider, including abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.
The ERLC joined other pro-life advocates in filing an amicus brief before the Supreme Court highlighting several key points.
- Planned Parenthood is primarily an abortion provider, whose “overriding goal is to prevent ‘healthy babies’ from coming ‘into this world; through induced abortion,” and women have better options for care.
- States have a vested interest in defunding Planned Parenthood and have the authority to determine the qualifications of Medicaid providers.
- Southern Baptists are committed to defending the sanctity of life and ensuring that Medicaid dollars are not directed to abortion providers.
What is the states defunding Planned Parenthood case about?
Executive order:
In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order that disqualified abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, from participating in the state’s Medicaid program. The state argued that Medicaid dollars should not be given to organizations that perform abortions, even if those funds are supposedly not used for abortion.
Lawsuit:
Several Medicaid beneficiaries filed a lawsuit challenging this policy, arguing that the federal Medicaid Act gives them the right to choose any provider under Medicaid and that South Carolina’s action violated this guarantee. Lower courts sided with the plaintiffs, ruling that South Carolina’s policy unlawfully restricted Medicaid recipients’ rights.
Central question:
The central question before the Supreme Court is whether individual Medicaid beneficiaries have the right to choose any provider they want, including abortion providers.
What happened during oral arguments in the states defunding Planned Parenthood case?
During oral arguments, justices questioned ADF attorney John Bursch about the language in the Medicaid Act providing individuals a right to bring lawsuits when they cannot freely visit any healthcare provider of their choosing. Bursch consistently stated the Medicaid Act provision at the center of this case does not use “clear, rights-creating language” for individuals to choose any healthcare provider they want, such as Planned Parenthood.
The court’s three liberal justices were adamant that the provision in dispute clearly uses language that gives individuals a right to choose any provider, even though the word “right” and its functional equivalents are not present in the text. They relied on the phrase that an individual “may obtain” care from any qualified provider to interpret an unambiguous right to choose your Medicaid provider.
Justice Kavanaugh asked each counsel where they would have the Supreme Court draw the line on what kinds of language confer rights when individuals are supposed to be receiving a government benefit.
Planned Parenthood’s counsel, Nicole Saharsky, argued individuals must have this right because otherwise there is no federal remedy for individuals when their provider is removed from the state’s Medicaid program. She further suggested states do not have the authority to restrict Medicaid beneficiaries’ choice of provider. However, Bursch explained individuals do not need a private right because the providers that have been deemed unqualified can appeal that decision. Furthermore, Bursch emphasized, “the reality is they (Planned Parenthood) haven’t pursued their administrative appeal yet. They went straight to court. They recruited a beneficiary. They filed their . . . suit.”
In his rebuttal, Bursch stressed to the justices that the fact there was such “robust conversation about whether this statute is mandatory or not, whether it’s rights-creating or not, demonstrates that the rights-creating language is ambiguous.” The Supreme Court has said in previous cases that rights-creating language must be unambiguous to be read as providing the right to an individual, and in these circumstances, “the state has to win.”
What happens next in states defunding Planned Parenthood case?
Now that there have been oral arguments, the justices will deliberate and draft an opinion. A decision is expected by the end of the court’s term in June 2025.
If the court upholds South Carolina’s policy, it would mark a significant victory for states seeking to protect preborn lives by ensuring they can redirect Medicaid dollars away from abortion providers.
Why does this states defunding Planned Parenthood case matter to Southern Baptists?
This case underscores Southern Baptists’ faithful commitment to the sanctity of life and the conviction that taxpayer dollars should never fund abortion or support groups that perform abortions.
At the 2021 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting, messengers passed a resolution “On Taxpayer Complicity In Abortion And The Hyde Amendment,” affirming the biblical mandate to protect the preborn and urging lawmakers to put an end to all federal funding for abortion providers.
A ruling in favor of South Carolina would uphold this conviction, ensuring that states can direct public funds to providers that do not take the life of preborn children and provide real healthcare to women. This case could have far-reaching implications for advancing pro-life policies across the nation. States must have the authority to enforce their pro-life laws in totality, including guaranteeing that government funds are not used to support Planned Parenthood or any other abortion providers.
You can read more about the ERLC’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood here.
