We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

The Supreme Court agreed to review Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case concerning Medicaid defunding of Planned Parenthood. The outcome of the case will impact states’ powers to protect women and unborn children from abortion businesses, taxpayers’ conscientious objections to abortion, and the public funding of authentic women’s health care. 

Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

In 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster issued an executive order recognizing the state’s public policy of protecting unborn children and supporting genuine women’s health and family planning services. The executive order determined that abortion businesses’ primary work subverts this public policy. Accordingly, Governor McMaster directed the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services to consider abortion businesses “unqualified” to provide family planning services under the Medicaid program. This executive order terminated Medicaid funding for abortion businesses. 

Planned Parenthood sued the Director of the state health department. The district court permanently blocked the executive order, prohibiting South Carolina from withdrawing Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding. The Fourth Circuit affirmed this decision, exacerbating the circuit split over the interpretation of the any-qualified-provider provision in the Medicaid Act. After previously denying two petitions for a writ of certiorari in this litigation, the Supreme Court now has agreed to review the case. 

The Question the Supreme Court Will Answer in Kerr

The Supreme Court is hearing the case solely to answer one question on statutory interpretation: whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. As part of this issue, the Court will analyze private rights of action—the ability of certain parties to sue to vindicate their statutory rights and interests—within Spending Clause legislation. The case raises broader questions of abortion funding restrictions and states’ powers to establish pro-life policy. 

Abortion Funding Restrictions Are Critical

Abortion funding restrictions are critical for social welfare appropriations. Abortion is a contentious issue, and a majority of Americans oppose using their tax dollars to fund abortion. In this regard, funding restrictions are an important safeguard for taxpayers’ conscience rights. They also have the practical effect of removing the abortion issue from the scope of appropriations, thus facilitating the passage of important social welfare legislation. 

Another benefit of abortion funding restrictions is the ability to funnel support to genuine women’s health care and family planning services. When the government funds abortion businesses, it is essentially subsidizing elective abortions. This is a critical issue because it subverts pro-life policies and channels funds away from authentic health care. Ultimately, this diminishes women’s access to necessary health care services. 

The Battle for Life Continues

The Supreme Court may have returned the abortion issue to the democratic process in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but states still are fighting to enforce their pro-life policies. The Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision has presented an ongoing issue for states that refuse to fund businesses that provide elective abortions. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case is a step in the right direction for states to fully protect human life from abortion violence.

Print