This story is complete B.S. What the court has said is that states don't have strong grounds to dictate terms for spending money they receive from the Federal government. Here's a better example that isn't fraught with controversy due to the subject of the funding:
Suppose the Federal government requires any highway project built on the National Highway System to be designed and constructed with 12-foot travel lanes. If a state gets Federal money to build a new highway that will be part of the NHS, they can't turn around and complain that they should have the right under the U.S. Constitution to build it with 11-foot lanes. Arguing against these Federal regulations about highway design on "states rights" grounds -- while using the Federal money to build the road -- is ludicrous.
If states don't want Planned Parenthood to get Medicaid funding, they should just stop accepting Medicaid funding, period.
Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown.
This is about the seventh or eighth posting of this story, and each one is accompanied by anti-Kavanaugh screeching by people that haven’t read the story or understand the decision, past the words “ruling for Planned Parenthood”.
I hate Planned Parenthood. The only way we will stop their federal funding is through Congress.
Your analogy is so absurd as to leave my jaw hanging.
No, it’s like the federal government telling the states to build highways, but since New Jersey builds 12-foot lanes, Alabama has been building 12-foot lanes. Alabama decides to build 11-foot lanes, and gets told the DOT will no longer fund the airport in Birmingham.
As to your claim, “If states don’t want Planned Parenthood to get Medicaid funding, they should just stop accepting Medicaid funding, period,” you sound like the Muslims who used Dhimmitude to disappear Christianity from the face of the Middle East. Alabama still has to pay for Medicare if they “reject” Medicare. As such, they will quickly be destroyed economically.
>>With all due respect, your comment is silly. Here’s MY comment from another thread that really goes to the heart of the legal dispute:
This story is complete B.S. What the court has said is that states don’t have strong grounds to dictate terms for spending money they receive from the Federal government. Here’s a better example that isn’t fraught with controversy due to the subject of the funding:
Suppose the Federal government requires any highway project built on the National Highway System to be designed and constructed with 12-foot travel lanes. If a state gets Federal money to build a new highway that will be part of the NHS, they can’t turn around and complain that they should have the right under the U.S. Constitution to build it with 11-foot lanes. Arguing against these Federal regulations about highway design on “states rights” grounds — while using the Federal money to build the road — is ludicrous.
If states don’t want Planned Parenthood to get Medicaid funding, they should just stop accepting Medicaid funding, period.
********************************************************
Silly? LOL! Here’s a lesson in the Constitution. Do try to pay attention, please . . .
The concept of the Federal Government distributing funds to the states for anything other than what is specifically authorized by the constitution is (drum roll...) unconstitutional! Do you not understand that simple concept?
Now, tell me the part of the Constitution which authorizes the distribution of taxpayer dollars to private corporations, such as Planned Parenthood? Hmm? Tell me!
Silly, indeed. smh.
The issue concerns 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(23) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. States have the authority to make sure their Medicaid health care providers are qualified to provide medical services. If not, they can TERMINATE the contract. PP got busted for fraudulent billing practices, poor sanitation/clinical practices, and allegedly ran an underground racket selling baby parts.
There a various conflicting decision among different appellate courts granting States the power to terminate contracts with health care providers who break regs. Roberts and Kav. sided with PP, not jurisprudence because this issue needs to be resolved.
There is another case waiting for cert concerning this matter, we shall see what happens.