The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday regarding a case related to South Carolina’s move to withhold funding from Planned Parenthood. The central issue before the justices was whether individuals have the right to sue the state to access medical services from Planned Parenthood that are not related to abortion.
In 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster ordered state officials to deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood, asserting that taxpayer funding to abortion clinics indirectly supports abortion and undermines the right to life.
Medicaid, which provides federal funds for medical care to low-income individuals, has specific conditions, one of which allows eligible participants to receive assistance from any qualified provider.
South Carolina prohibits abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, except in life-threatening situations or cases of rape or incest. Nevertheless, Planned Parenthood clinics in Charleston and Columbia offer non-abortion related services, including counseling, physical examinations, contraception, and screenings for cancer and sexually transmitted infections.
Planned Parenthood, along with a patient seeking contraception, filed a lawsuit under a federal civil rights law, leading a federal trial judge to block the South Carolina directive, determining it violated Medicaid’s stipulation permitting patients to choose any qualified provider.
The subsequent litigation was complex, predominantly debating whether this provision granted individuals the right to file lawsuits. The Supreme Court has stated that federal laws like Medicaid must clearly confer individual rights for those affected to have the capacity to sue.
This is a challenging standard to meet; the court has acknowledged it has only been fulfilled in rare instances. The most recent example was in 2023 in a case concerning nursing homes, which included explicit references to "rights," unlike the Medicaid provision in the current case.
Nicole A. Saharsky, representing Planned Parenthood, recognized the stringent standard, stating that proving Congress established an individually enforceable right is difficult, but argued that the provision in question meets this criterion.
Conversely, Kyle D. Hawkins, representing the Trump administration, argued that the Medicaid provision lacked the necessary “unmistakable rights-creating language.” He noted that the Biden administration had reversed its position, asserting that the current interpretation is the most accurate reading of the statute.
The justices explored whether Congress needs to include specific terminology to authorize lawsuits. John J. Bursch, representing South Carolina, suggested a list of words that would clarify such rights. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh noted that precise language could help avoid unnecessary litigation.
Justice Elena Kagan commented that the Medicaid law's language clearly indicates that the state must allow individuals to choose their healthcare providers.
Last year, a unanimous panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the lawsuit could proceed, emphasizing that the case hinges on whether Congress granted Medicaid beneficiaries the right to freely select their healthcare provider.
The panel's decision highlighted that maintaining access to Planned Parenthood and similar providers is crucial for ensuring affordable care for many mothers and infants in South Carolina and clarified that the ruling does not pertain to funding or providing abortions.
Although abortion was only briefly referenced during the arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the case encompasses broader issues concerning the rights of Medicaid recipients. Saharsky stated that Congress aimed to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries have the same rights as those with private insurance, as this is essential for individual dignity and autonomy.