SCOTUS Could Deny Planned Parenthood Medicaid Funds

As a result of Planned Parenthood’s unethical and illegal profiteering of aborted baby body parts revealed through undercover videos, South Carolina has a compelling interest to deny taxpayer funds for providers that engage in such practices.

Currently, the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are divided 5-2 with the majority in favor of funding Planned Parenthood by interpreting the Medicaid Act provides a right to choose a specific qualified provider. However, the Fifth and Eighth Circuits found that the Medicaid Act does not confer a federal right to choose just any provider nor does it confer the right to sue states that exclude Planned Parenthood as not qualified for the Medicaid program.

In South Carolina, state law prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions. Medina arose after Governor Henry McMaster signed an executive order in 2018 deeming abortion clinics unqualified to receive state Medicaid funding under the state law. According to the state’s SCOTUS petition, Gov. McMaster’s order stated that South Carolina “has a strong culture and longstanding tradition of protecting and defending the life and liberty of unborn children.” The order directed state health officials to “deem abortion clinics unqualified” to receive funding for abortion-related services. Shortly thereafter, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and one of its Medicaid clients challenged the executive order claiming it violated federal law under the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” language.

The law’s “any qualified provider” language grants beneficiaries the right to choose their provider from a pool of providers the state has deemed qualified. In the amicus brief, Liberty Counsel argues the law’s language does not guarantee an individual right to access to any provider willing to participate in Medicaid, and therefore, states are free to disqualify providers that engage in unethical and illegal practices.

Since Planned Parenthood has been credibly implicated in these types of practices – notably the “shadowy proliferation” of fetal tissue trafficking brought to light by undercover journalists Sandra Merritt and David Daleiden – states like South Carolina have a compelling interest to keep Medicaid funds from subsidizing these “abhorrent” practices. For example, Texas disqualified Planned Parenthood based on Merritt’s and Daleiden’s work determining it violated federal regulations on fetal tissue research, in which the Fifth Circuit upheld that decision. Liberty Counsel noted that South Carolina’s similar decision to disqualify Planned Parenthood exemplifies the will of the state’s legislature to protect unborn life and that the “any qualified provider” language in the Medicaid Act clearly is not meant to override a state’s pro-life values and policies.

To interpret the law this broadly would disrupt the “delicate balance of power” between federal government oversight and the respect for state discretion as to how Medicaid funds are appropriately used, wrote Liberty Counsel.

In quoting the Fifth Circuit, Liberty Counsel added, “A Medicaid patient may choose among qualified and willing providers but has no right to insist that a particular provider is ‘qualified’ when the State has determined otherwise.”

Liberty Counsel represents Sandra Merritt and defended her against criminal and civil charges for exposing the truth about Planned Parenthood. Liberty Counsel recently negotiated a plea deal to end the criminal case with no prison time and no fines for Merritt, which is essentially a complete victory for her in this politically-motivated case.

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “States should be permitted to defund Planned Parenthood. It makes no sense to require states to fund an organization that kills children. Congress did not create a right for individuals to have states pay for their abortions. Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund abortion or subsidize practices that kill children and harms women.”