The U.S. Supreme Court stated on Dec. 18 that it will consider whether South Carolina can stop Planned Parenthood from taking part in the state’s Medicaid program.
Medicaid is a joint federal–state program that offers health insurance coverage to low-income Americans.
Planned Parenthood is a major provider of abortion services. It also offers other services such as birth control and pregnancy testing.
The order by the Republican governor directed state health officials to “deem abortion clinics unqualified to provide family planning services.” The executive fiat also made officials terminate clinics’ enrollment agreements and deny their enrollment applications in the future.
It followed a state law that forbids the use of state funds to pay for abortions.
The issue in the case at hand is whether “the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider,” according to the petition.
Federal courts of appeals disagree on how the provision should be interpreted. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard the South Carolina case in March and ruled against the state.
The case goes back to 2018, when Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and Julie Edwards, one of the organization’s Medicaid clients, filed a lawsuit in federal district court over South Carolina’s policy, according to the petition.
They argued that the state had violated clients’ right to select a “qualified provider” under federal law.
South Carolina countered by saying that the any-qualified-provider provision “does not unambiguously create a federal right enforceable by providers and individual patients under 42 U.S.C. [Section] 1983,” a federal law that allows individuals to sue the government for civil rights violations.
The district court upheld Edwards’s right to sue South Carolina over the state’s vow to not cover medical treatment that Planned Parenthood might provide to her. The court also granted Edwards’s request for a preliminary injunction against the state and did not rule on whether Planned Parenthood was also entitled to the same kind of order.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision, finding that Congress intended “to create an individual right enforceable under [Section] 1983 in the free-choice-of-provider provision” and that the provision “bars states from excluding providers for reasons unrelated to professional competency.”
The Supreme Court previously examined the issues in the South Carolina dispute, directing the Fourth Circuit last year to take a second look at whether a Medicaid recipient could sue over a state’s refusal to pay for medical treatment.
The high court also separately ruled last year in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski that Medicaid enrollees can sue when state officials violate their rights.
The Fourth Circuit ultimately concluded that even though the Talevski opinion provided an “illuminating analysis,” it did not alter the standard previously articulated by the Supreme Court.
South Carolina appealed that decision to the Supreme Court in June.
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is representing the petitioner, Robert Kerr, who at the time the suit was filed was director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.
After the new ruling, ADF attorney John Bursch said he was hopeful about the case’s prospects.
“Taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to fund facilities that choose to profit off abortion, and South Carolina is free to use its limited funding to subsidize life-affirming healthcare,” he said during an online press conference.
Bursch said that it appears the Supreme Court took the case because “the circuit split just got too deep and wide for them to ignore any longer.”
Circuit courts are currently split five to two over whether a Medicaid recipient has the right to file a lawsuit to obtain a specific provider of their choice under the any-qualified-provider provision, according to the lawyer.
“The Supreme Court is in the business of making sure that federal statutes like the Medicaid Act apply universally across the country and that the rights are not different depending on the state where you happen to live,” he said.
Planned Parenthood’s attorney, Nicole Saharsky of Washington firm Mayer Brown, declined to comment and referred The Epoch Times to the group’s communications office.
Planned Parenthood’s communications office did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.
No oral argument has yet been scheduled in the case.
If the hearing takes place early in the new year, the court could issue a ruling by the end of June 2025.
