to someone who made their money
terminating the lives of other human beings.
How very Democratic of them.
Posted on 01/07/2025 1:04:21 PM PST by Twotone
The Supreme Court has agreed to review a case addressing whether taxpayer funding can be directed toward abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.
The case centers on South Carolina’s decision to bar Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds. In 2018, Planned Parenthood sued Carolina after it determined that abortion clinics were “unqualified” to provide services under Medicaid. The organization argued that this decision was in violation of federal law, arguing that the the Medicaid program guarantees patients the right to select any “qualified provider” for non-abortion medical services. South Carolina countered that Medicaid does not grant an unconditional right to choose any provider.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, aligning with decisions from several other federal appellate courts. However, two appeals courts have ruled differently, creating a legal divide that the Supreme Court will now seek to resolve.
The case follows significant changes in abortion laws in recent years, including the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Since the 2018 lawsuit, South Carolina has also passed a six-week abortion ban.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is representing South Carolina officials in the case. ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch issued a statement emphasizing the state’s right to determine how taxpayer funds are used.
“Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund facilities that make a profit off abortion,” Bursch said. “Pro-life states like South Carolina should be free to determine that Planned Parenthood and other entities that peddle abortion are not qualified to receive taxpayer funding through Medicaid.”
23-1275 KERR, DIRECTOR SC DEPT OF HEALTH V. PLANNED PARENTHOOD
DECISION BELOW: 95 F.4th 152
QUESTION PRESENTED:THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.
CERT. GRANTED 12/18/2024 More than 30 years ago, this Court first applied what would become known as the "Blessing factors," holding that a Medicaid Act provision created a privately enforceable right to certain reimbursement rates . Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 509-10 (1990). Later, the Court distilled from Wilder a multi-factor test for deciding whether a "statutory provision gives rise to a federal right" privately enforceable under Section 1983. Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340 (1997). Five years later, though, the Court disparaged Blessing's test while clarifying that only "an unambiguously conferred right is enforceable by § 1983." Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 282 (2002). Then, in Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski, 599 U.S. 166, 180 (2023), the Court doubled down on Gonzaga's "demanding bar."
The Court did not apply Blessing or Wilder in Talevski, but it did not overrule them either. After the Court GVR'd this case in light of Talevski, the Fourth Circuit applied Wilder and Blessing again and reaffirmed its prior opinions, maintaining a 5-2 circuit split over the first question presented and a 3-1 circuit split over the proper reading of O'Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U.S. 773 (1980), which frames the second question. Those questions are:
1. Whether the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.
2. What is the scope of a Medicaid beneficiary's alleged right to choose a provider that a state has deemed disqualified?
THE PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION.
CERT. GRANTED 12/18/2024
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.