Medina V. Planned Parenthood
In 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster ordered the states Department of Health and Human Services to block abortion clinics from taking part in the Medicaid program. Through the Hyde Amendment, which President Trump reinstated in January, 2025, the use of Medicaid funds for abortion is prohibited. However, in cases of rape, incest, or the “life of the mother”, federal tax dollars from Medicaid are allowed. Which, in essence, means there aren’t really any restrictions on abortion at the federal level. In addition to that, the Hyde Amendment does not restrict individual states from using their own Medicaid funds to pay for recipients to get an abortion. For years I thought the Hyde Amendment was doing some good, but it’s really just all for show. Women on Medicaid can get free abortions for any reason.
This case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, is about abortion clinics getting Medicaid funding ultimately, but because of the way in which Planned Parenthood brought the case, it’s actually about whether Congress, when it wrote the Medicaid Act meant to infer that a Medicaid recipient has an individual right to choose “any qualified provider” or can they be restricted from choosing particular ones? Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, similar to the process Sarah Weddington used when she found Norma McCorvey to use as her “harmed” client for Roe v. Wade, located one individual who was being “harmed” by the South Carolina law and sued propelling the case to the Supreme Court. Oral arguments were heard Wednesday, April 2nd, and a decision is expected this summer.
If Eunice Medina, the Secretary of HHS and the state of South Carolina were to prevail in this case it would free up SC and other states to direct dollars to real comprehensive health care providers. The funds would no longer be directed to Planned Parenthood whose “services” are approximately 400,000 abortions per year as well as being the second largest provider in the country of puberty blockers, and a company that already receives an estimated $500 million in taxpayer funding through the federal Medicaid program.
If the Supreme Court justices side with the plaintiff, any U.S. citizen, under something called the 1983 Civil Rights Provision would be able to sue directly to the U.S. Supreme Court for their “right” to get healthcare from an abortion provider and the monies that would ordinarily go to low-income people who lack medical assistance would be redirected by law to pay the legal fees of states having to go to court because of the suit.
Beware, however! This isn’t a cut and dried conservative vs. liberal ideological lawsuit. (SCOTUS cases shouldn’t be ideological! But the media does a knock-out job of presenting them as such.) As Justice Amy Coney Barrett voiced during the oral arguments, (echoing Justice Sotomayor) “If I want to go see the provider of my choice,” she said, “but the state has disqualified him from participating in Medicaid, you’re depriving me of my ability … to see the provider of my choice. And nobody’s disputing that the physician can provide the services in a competent way that I want to have.” (Notice, by the way, that Planned Parenthood didn’t bring this suit saying "We’re a legitimate and comprehensive health care provider! This isn’t fair!" No, they had to invent a different way to bring suit in order to get to the Supreme Court.)
So I think the decision of the Justices may come down to whether or not a Medicaid recipient has a legal “right” to choose “any qualified provider” as the Medicaid Act states. Congress knows how to use rights-creating language. So did it?
One more thing: the Medicaid Act is a sort of “contract” between the Feds and the State. Contracts need to have clear terms. If there’s ambiguity, it’s not incumbent upon the state to clear it up. Secondly, the Medicaid Act is a directive to the Secretary of Health and Human Services of particular states. The Secretary of HHS has discretion to decide whom to fund based on who is compliant with the stipulations they set, so if they don’t want Medicaid funds to go to abortion providers, they are free to decide that. Planned Parenthood bypassed the process with Ms. Medina and is trying to force what the terms of the contract between the federal government and the state mean by picking a random participant and forcing the idea that choosing “any qualified provider” means an individual right.
Planned Parenthood is not a healthcare provider. They are an activist organization that we as taxpayers are forced to give millions and millions of our hard earned money to every year so that they can kill thousands of children before they’re born. Nothing would give me more pleasure than stripping Planned Parenthood of every single dollar they receive.
Let’s be praying that the Justices decide that Congress knows how to write rights-creating language and that the way the Medicaid Act is currently written is sufficient for each Secretary of HHS in all 50 states to distribute the money as they see fit, but let’s also pray that Planned Parenthood lose their funding through other inventive ways. Pray for innovation and creativity in every one of our pro-life, anti-abortion legislators!