On April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a critical case about the use of Medicaid funds—Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. This case about defunding Planned Parenthood will determine whether individual Medicaid beneficiaries have the legal right to challenge a state’s decision to exclude certain healthcare providers, such as Planned Parenthood, from Medicaid programs.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioners. The brief highlights:
- 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:
This case arose when South Carolina, under the direction of Gov. Henry McMaster, issued an executive order in 2018 that disqualified abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, from participating in the state’s Medicaid program. The state argued that Medicaid dollars should not indirectly subsidize organizations involved in abortion, even if those funds are not used for abortion services themselves.
Lawsuit filed:
Several Medicaid beneficiaries filed a lawsuit challenging this policy, arguing that federal law gives them the right to choose any qualified provider under Medicaid and that South Carolina’s action violated this federal 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 a private right of action, otherwise known as the right to sue, under federal law to challenge a state’s decision to exclude certain providers from its Medicaid program.
This decision could have far-reaching implications for how states administer Medicaid and for the broader debate surrounding taxpayer funding of abortion providers.
What legal arguments are being made in the states defunding Planned Parenthood case?
South Carolina’s government:
Petitioning the Supreme Court, South Carolina’s government argued that states have broad authority to determine the qualifications of Medicaid providers as long as they comply with federal guidelines. They asserted that federal Medicaid law does not explicitly grant individual beneficiaries the right to sue over provider disqualifications and that such decisions should be left to state governments and federal oversight.
Planned Parenthood and beneficiaries:
In contrast, Planned Parenthood and the beneficiaries claim that federal law guarantees Medicaid beneficiaries the right to access care from any qualified provider. They argue that this includes the right to challenge state policies that limit their choice of providers. They maintain that South Carolina’s policy is an unlawful attempt to restrict access to healthcare providers based on ideological opposition to abortion.
The ERLC’s brief:
The ERLC’s brief argues that the Supreme Court should uphold South Carolina’s policy, emphasizing that the state’s decision is a legitimate exercise of its authority to ensure Medicaid funds are not indirectly supporting abortion providers. The brief also underscores the moral and ethical concerns surrounding abortion and the importance of directing Medicaid funds toward life-affirming healthcare providers.
What is at stake in the states defunding Planned Parenthood case?
This case carries significant implications for both state-level authority over Medicaid and the broader national debate on abortion funding.
A ruling for South Carolina:
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the South Carolina government, states will have increased latitude to exclude abortion providers from Medicaid programs, even if those providers offer other non-abortion-related services. Such a decision could empower other states to adopt similar policies, reducing the stream of taxpayer funds to organizations like Planned Parenthood.
A ruling for Planned Parenthood:
Conversely, a ruling for Planned Parenthood could enshrine the right of Medicaid beneficiaries to challenge state decisions and limit the ability of states to restrict provider participation in Medicaid based on moral objections.
What happens next in the states defunding Planned Parenthood case?
After hearing oral arguments, the Supreme Court will deliberate and draft its opinion in this case. 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 ensure that Medicaid funds are used in alignment with pro-life state laws.
What does the states defunding Planned Parenthood case mean for Southern Baptists?
This case reflects Southern Baptists’ unwavering commitment to the sanctity of life and their belief that taxpayer funds should never be used to support abortion providers.
At the 2021 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting, messengers passed a resolution “On Taxpayer Complicity In Abortion And The Hyde Amendment,” which affirmed the biblical principle of protecting human life and called on lawmakers to end all federal funding for abortion providers. A ruling in favor of South Carolina would align with this resolution and reinforce the conviction that public funds should be used to support life-affirming, ethical medical care. The outcome of this case could significantly impact efforts to uphold these values and protect the preborn across the nation.
Photo credit: Credit: jetcityimage, iStock Editorial / Getty Images Plus
