Supreme Court to Review South Carolina’s Medicaid Funding Cuts to Planned Parenthood

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Medicaid Funding and Planned Parenthood

In Washington, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider a significant legal issue that could impact Medicaid funding in South Carolina. The question at the center is whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue under a law that allows them to choose any provider qualified to offer necessary medical services. This case focuses on the state’s decision to cut Medicaid funding for medical services offered by Planned Parenthood, an organization known for providing a range of health services but also performing abortions.

Background of the Case

The legal battle began when South Carolina’s Republican Governor Henry McMaster ordered state officials to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood in 2018. McMaster argued that “payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life.” This directive triggered a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood and a patient who sought contraception, who claimed that the state’s action violated the Medicaid provision allowing a free choice of provider.

Federal rules governing Medicaid stipulate that states must let eligible participants choose any healthcare provider who can perform the required services. In South Carolina, Planned Parenthood clinics located in Charleston and Columbia provide essential services such as counseling, physical exams, cancer screenings, and contraception. Although abortions are banned after six weeks of pregnancy in the state, Medicaid funding can only be provided in instances where mom’s life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest.

The Legal Proceedings

A federal trial judge initially blocked the order from Governor McMaster, stating it interfered with beneficiaries’ rights to choose their healthcare providers. The lawsuit led to convoluted and drawn-out litigation, focusing on whether Medicaid beneficiaries have the right to enforce their choice of providers individually. In March, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously ruled that the lawsuit was appropriate. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote, “This case is, and always has been, about whether Congress conferred an individually enforceable right for Medicaid beneficiaries to freely choose their health care provider.” He emphasized that preserving access to Planned Parenthood is crucial for many mothers and infants in South Carolina.

Arguments from Both Sides

The state of South Carolina, represented by the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom, has now asked the Supreme Court to review the case. They argue that taxpayer dollars should not fund organizations that perform abortions. John Bursch, a lawyer with the group, stated, “Pro-life states like South Carolina should be free to determine that Planned Parenthood and other entities that peddle abortion are not qualified to receive taxpayer funding through Medicaid.”

On the other hand, Planned Parenthood’s legal team has responded by stating that the case is straightforward. Their brief insists that, “Planned Parenthood affiliates provide essential medical care to low-income individuals through state Medicaid programs.” They further argue that South Carolina unjustly terminated their Medicaid provider agreement without proper justification.

The Next Steps

The Supreme Court hearing, officially designated as Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, will address the complex issues surrounding Medicaid funding, state government authority, and access to healthcare services. As healthcare continues to be a contentious topic in the United States, this case could have lasting effects on how states manage Medicaid funding and deliver healthcare to underserved populations.

With much at stake, the outcome of this case will be closely watched by both supporters and opponents of abortion rights across the nation. As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision will likely resonate far beyond South Carolina.

Author: HERE Lexington