US Supreme Court backs South Carolina effort to defund Planned Parenthood
'Today, the Supreme Court again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted healthcare provider and making your own healthcare decisions,' said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Alexis McGill Johnson.
Lawmakers are trying to defund Planned Parenthood 'as part of their long-term goal to shut down Planned Parenthood and ban abortion nationwide' she said.
South Carolina attorney general Alan Wilson, a Republican, welcomed the ruling.
'This is about who runs South Carolina, our elected leaders or out of state activists and unelected judges. We're glad the court got it right,' Wilson said.
Since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe vs Wade ruling that had legalised abortion nationwide, a number of Republican-led states have implemented near-total bans or, like South Carolina, prohibitions after six weeks of pregnancy.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates clinics in the South Carolina cities of Charleston and Columbia, where it serves hundreds of Medicaid patients each year, providing physical examinations, screenings for cancer and diabetes, pregnancy testing, contraception and other services.
Planned Parenthood affiliate and Medicaid patient Julie Edwards sued in 2018 after Republican governor Henry McMaster ordered South Carolina officials to end the organisation's participation in the state Medicaid programme by deeming any abortion provider unqualified to provide family planning services.
The plaintiffs sued South Carolina under an 1871 US law that helps people challenge illegal acts by state officials. They said the Medicaid law protects what they called a 'deeply personal right' to choose one's doctor. The South Carolina department of health and human services, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative legal group and backed by President Donald Trump's administration, said the disputed Medicaid provision in the case does not meet the 'high bar for recognising private rights'.
In the ruling, Gorsuch agreed with South Carolina, saying the law did not provide 'clear and unambiguous notice of an individually enforceable right'. He noted 'private enforcement does not always benefit the public, not least because it requires states to divert money and attention away from social services and towards litigation'.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by the court's two other liberal justices that the ruling 'is likely to result in tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them'.
The ruling will strip Medicaid recipients around the country of the ability to decide who treats them at their most vulnerable, Jackson wrote, calling that 'a deeply personal freedom'.
A federal judge ruled in Planned Parenthood's favour, finding Medicaid recipients may sue under the 1871 law and that the state's move to defund the organisation violated the right of Edwards to freely choose a qualified medical provider.
In 2024, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US circuit court of appeals also sided with the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 2.
Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald
a day ago
- The Herald
US Supreme Court backs South Carolina effort to defund Planned Parenthood
'Today, the Supreme Court again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted healthcare provider and making your own healthcare decisions,' said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Alexis McGill Johnson. Lawmakers are trying to defund Planned Parenthood 'as part of their long-term goal to shut down Planned Parenthood and ban abortion nationwide' she said. South Carolina attorney general Alan Wilson, a Republican, welcomed the ruling. 'This is about who runs South Carolina, our elected leaders or out of state activists and unelected judges. We're glad the court got it right,' Wilson said. Since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe vs Wade ruling that had legalised abortion nationwide, a number of Republican-led states have implemented near-total bans or, like South Carolina, prohibitions after six weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates clinics in the South Carolina cities of Charleston and Columbia, where it serves hundreds of Medicaid patients each year, providing physical examinations, screenings for cancer and diabetes, pregnancy testing, contraception and other services. Planned Parenthood affiliate and Medicaid patient Julie Edwards sued in 2018 after Republican governor Henry McMaster ordered South Carolina officials to end the organisation's participation in the state Medicaid programme by deeming any abortion provider unqualified to provide family planning services. The plaintiffs sued South Carolina under an 1871 US law that helps people challenge illegal acts by state officials. They said the Medicaid law protects what they called a 'deeply personal right' to choose one's doctor. The South Carolina department of health and human services, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative legal group and backed by President Donald Trump's administration, said the disputed Medicaid provision in the case does not meet the 'high bar for recognising private rights'. In the ruling, Gorsuch agreed with South Carolina, saying the law did not provide 'clear and unambiguous notice of an individually enforceable right'. He noted 'private enforcement does not always benefit the public, not least because it requires states to divert money and attention away from social services and towards litigation'. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by the court's two other liberal justices that the ruling 'is likely to result in tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them'. The ruling will strip Medicaid recipients around the country of the ability to decide who treats them at their most vulnerable, Jackson wrote, calling that 'a deeply personal freedom'. A federal judge ruled in Planned Parenthood's favour, finding Medicaid recipients may sue under the 1871 law and that the state's move to defund the organisation violated the right of Edwards to freely choose a qualified medical provider. In 2024, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US circuit court of appeals also sided with the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 2. Reuters
TimesLIVE
a day ago
- TimesLIVE
US Supreme Court backs South Carolina effort to defund Planned Parenthood
'Today, the Supreme Court again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted healthcare provider and making your own healthcare decisions,' said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president Alexis McGill Johnson. Lawmakers are trying to defund Planned Parenthood 'as part of their long-term goal to shut down Planned Parenthood and ban abortion nationwide' she said. South Carolina attorney general Alan Wilson, a Republican, welcomed the ruling. 'This is about who runs South Carolina, our elected leaders or out of state activists and unelected judges. We're glad the court got it right,' Wilson said. Since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe vs Wade ruling that had legalised abortion nationwide, a number of Republican-led states have implemented near-total bans or, like South Carolina, prohibitions after six weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates clinics in the South Carolina cities of Charleston and Columbia, where it serves hundreds of Medicaid patients each year, providing physical examinations, screenings for cancer and diabetes, pregnancy testing, contraception and other services. Planned Parenthood affiliate and Medicaid patient Julie Edwards sued in 2018 after Republican governor Henry McMaster ordered South Carolina officials to end the organisation's participation in the state Medicaid programme by deeming any abortion provider unqualified to provide family planning services. The plaintiffs sued South Carolina under an 1871 US law that helps people challenge illegal acts by state officials. They said the Medicaid law protects what they called a 'deeply personal right' to choose one's doctor. The South Carolina department of health and human services, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative legal group and backed by President Donald Trump's administration, said the disputed Medicaid provision in the case does not meet the 'high bar for recognising private rights'. In the ruling, Gorsuch agreed with South Carolina, saying the law did not provide 'clear and unambiguous notice of an individually enforceable right'. He noted 'private enforcement does not always benefit the public, not least because it requires states to divert money and attention away from social services and towards litigation'. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a dissent joined by the court's two other liberal justices that the ruling 'is likely to result in tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them'. The ruling will strip Medicaid recipients around the country of the ability to decide who treats them at their most vulnerable, Jackson wrote, calling that 'a deeply personal freedom'. A federal judge ruled in Planned Parenthood's favour, finding Medicaid recipients may sue under the 1871 law and that the state's move to defund the organisation violated the right of Edwards to freely choose a qualified medical provider. In 2024, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US circuit court of appeals also sided with the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on April 2.
Mail & Guardian
2 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
The UN at 80 must not be sidetracked by global hegemons
As humanity, we should be constructing a multilateral system that can respond effectively to global crises. The UN at 80 (UN80) initiative is a dangerous distraction, fuelled by threats from Washington to withhold and reduce its massive financing of the United Nations, a body created in 1945. An initiative that could weaken multilateralism is dangerous in the sense that it will further undermine the international system of collective security, which in reality leads to the bombing of children in hospitals, deprives refugees of shelter and food and sets back efforts to regulate climate change and protect the environment. The UN's budget is about $3.7 billion; by contrast New York City's annual budget is $5.9 billion. The paradox is evident for all to see. As humanity, we spend less than a city's budget on floundering efforts to address global crises such as geopolitical conflict, the climate catastrophe, refugee flows that are double those of World War II, food scarcity and attempts to regulate artificial intelligence, including robotic weapons. To put matters further in perspective, global humanity spends more than $2 trillion on military concerns, with a significant proportion of that transferred to corporations that indirectly influence political actors and systems around the world to spend more on death and destruction. As humanity, we should be constructing a multilateral system that can respond effectively to global crises. Such a system should be operating with at least 10% of the $2 trillion that we spend on the military, or roughly $200 billion a year — which can be achieved by the international taxation of global financial flows. This shows that humanity has its priorities dangerously skewed and self-defeatingly inverse. We spend more on the weapons of destruction and their production than we do on ensuring that the 3.5 billion people who go to sleep each night hungry have enough to eat. It is evident that Washington has an over-sized financial dominance of the UN system and now the 'America First' ideology dictates that multilateralism must die so that Washington can have free rein to trumpet its call of 'Make America Great Again'. This conveniently glosses over the fact that, for Native Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Latino-Americans, there was no point in the past when they were genuinely included in this bygone, mythical 'great' America. These so-called minorities were in fact the human fodder upon which mainstream America built its affluence and maintained its dominance of the state and, by extension, of the world. An opportunity has presented itself for the governments of the global majority to stand up to this misguided Washingtonian agenda that is hellbent on 'flooding the zone' with chaotic disruption to pursue its insular and mercantilist agenda. The genie of globalisation has long left the bottle. The wide array of global threats, including the existential wars in Middle East between Israel and Palestine, and now Israel and Iran; Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the civil war in Sudan; as well as the climate crisis; unprecedented refugee flows and the unregulated power of artificial intelligence, have to be addressed by effective global institutions that are legitimated by, and for, the people through, for example, a world parliament. The planet can no longer be governed by nation states that are unable to see beyond their own juvenile navel-gazing impulse expressed as 'national interests'. The tempestuous weather patterns that burn down the Palisades of California and sweep away the shacks of people in informal settlements do not discriminate between Californians and Nairobi's residents. Climate change is a global issue that has outgrown state-centric systems and exposes the failure of nation-states to act in the interests of humanity. The collapse of the international system of collective security, embodied in the decrepit and UN (In)Security Council, has paved the way for geopolitical conflagrations that threaten the lives of tens of millions of people around the world. If the governments of the global majority are serious about reviving multilateralism, then they need to commit to putting their money where their mouths are. Switzerland has already committed an additional $300 million to financing UN agencies in Geneva. Other governments around the world, particularly those in the Global North, should follow suit and plug the gaps that will be left behind by Washington's exodus from multilateralism. Beyond reinforcing multilateralism it is clear that humanity needs to convene a global conversation about the nature of the institutions that it aspires to build for the 21st century. It is likely that this conversation will need to take place without the imprimatur of Washington, Beijing and Moscow, which are focused on returning to an era of global authoritarianism in pursuit of their illusory 'national interests'. It is feasible, and preferable, for the proponents of multilateralism, including the erstwhile vassals of Washington such as London, Paris and Brussels, to participate in this conversation. A practical pathway to convening this global conversation is through the actions of a coalition of willing governments in the General Assembly invoking article 109 to convene a General Conference to Review the UN Charter. Such a conference will not be a once-off talk-fest but will span two to three years and will design a renewed system of international relations. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council will not be able to veto such a conference, which has not been convened to completion in the 80-year history of the UN. The UN80 initiative is a dangerous distraction, emanating from a fear-based response, which will undoubtedly cause tremendous hardship to UN personnel and their families. If it is allowed to succeed, it will enfeeble multilateralism, place it on a much weaker footing and provide a carte blanche to a self-appointed minority of global hegemons to run roughshod over the planet's global majority. The UN80 should be exposed for the unholy distraction that will weaken, rather than strengthen, multilateralism that it is. Professor Tim Murithi is a research associate at the Institute for Democracy, Citizenship and Public Policy in Africa at the University of Cape Town.
