States can block Medicaid money for health care at Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court says
WASHINGTON (AP) — States can block the country's biggest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, from receiving Medicaid money for health services such as contraception and cancer screenings, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
The 6-3 opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by the rest of the court's conservatives was not directly about abortion, but it comes as Republicans back a wider push across the country to defund the organization. It closes off Planned Parenthood's primary court path to keeping Medicaid funding in place: patient lawsuits.
The justices found that while Medicaid law allows people choose their own provider, that does not make it a right enforceable in court. The court split along ideological lines, with the three liberals dissenting in the case from South Carolina.
Public health care money generally cannot be used to pay for abortions, but Medicaid patients go to Planned Parenthood for other needs in part because it can be difficult to find a doctor who takes the publicly funded insurance, the organization has said.
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, said Planned Parenthood should not get any taxpayer money. The budget bill backed by President Donald Trump in Congress would also cut Medicaid money for the group. That could force the closure of about 200 centers, most of them in states where abortion is legal, Planned Parenthood has said.
McMaster first moved to cut off the Medicaid funding in 2018, but he was blocked in court after a lawsuit from a patient, Julie Edwards, who wanted to keep going to Planned Parenthood for birth control because her diabetes makes pregnancy potentially dangerous. Edwards sued under a provision in Medicaid law that allows patients to choose their own qualified provider.
South Carolina argued that patients should not be able file such lawsuits. The state pointed to lower courts that have been swayed by similar arguments and allowed states such as Texas to act against Planned Parenthood.
The high court majority agreed.
'Deciding whether to permit private enforcement poses delicate policy questions involving competing costs and benefits — decisions for elected representatives, not judges,' Gorsuch wrote. He pointed out that patients can appeal through other administrative processes if coverage is denied.
McMaster, in a statement, said his state had taken 'a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values — and today, we are finally victorious.'
White House spokesman Harrison Fields called the opinion 'a major victory for common sense' and said it underscores the Republican president's position that states should determine abortion policy.
In a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the ruling is 'likely to result in tangible harm to real people.'
'It will strip those South Carolinians — and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country — of a deeply personal freedom: the 'ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable,'" she wrote.
Planned Parenthood officials said the decision will hinder access to care like preventive screenings for 1 million Medicaid recipients in South Carolina. The state didn't accuse Planned Parenthood of providing inadequate care, she said, calling the decision to cut it off a political one.
'Instead of patients now deciding where to get care, that now lies with the state,' said Katherine Farris, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. 'If they fall on hard financial times, as many are right now, they are fundamentally less free."
Other conservative states are expected to follow South Carolina's lead with funding cuts, potentially creating a 'backdoor abortion ban,' said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Eighteen states weighed into the case in support of South Carolina.
Medicaid patients make up 3.5% of the organization's South Carolina patients who go for services unrelated to abortion or gender-affirming care, officials said. Because South Carolina has not expanded its Medicaid program, reimbursements do not cover its preventive care costs, spokesperson Molly Rivera said.
Planned Parenthood will continue to provide care for women who need it in South Carolina, but won't bill the government, said Vicki Ringer, a spokesperson for the South Carolina branch.
'This does not close us down despite the governor's best efforts,' Ringer said.
Up to one-quarter of people in the U.S. use Medicaid, and lawsuits have been the only real way they've been able to make sure they can choose their doctor, according to court papers filed by the American Cancer Society and other public health groups. Removing the ability to sue could reduce access to health care, especially in rural areas, the advocates said.
Patient lawsuits are an important accountability tool because regulators 'can't possibly monitor all federal requirements in all states at all times," said Julian Polaris, a lawyer who regularly advises state programs and health care providers. The ruling raises questions about whether patients can still sue to secure medically necessary services and eligibility determinations, he said.
In South Carolina, $90,000 in Medicaid funding goes to Planned Parenthood every year, a tiny fraction of the state's total Medicaid spending. The state banned abortion at about six weeks' gestation after the Supreme Court overturned it as a nationwide right in 2022. The conservative Christian legal-advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented South Carolina officials, said the ruling would allow the state to direct Medicaid dollars to 'comprehensive health care" for low-income patients.
___
Associated Press writers Jeffrey Collins in Columbia, South Carolina, and Meg Kinnard contributed to this report.
___
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
18 minutes ago
- Fox News
British colonel praises US for 'tremendous results' in Iran strike
All times eastern FOX News Saturday Night with Jimmy Failla FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Senate convenes over President Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill'
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CVS Health Corporation (CVS) Outpaces Broader Market with Strong 2025 Rally
CVS Health Corporation (NYSE:CVS) is one of the Best Dividend Stocks of 2025. A row of shelves in a retail pharmacy, demonstrating the variety of drugs and over-the-counter products. Following a challenging year in 2024, CVS Health Corporation (NYSE:CVS) appears to be making progress toward a recovery. The company remains committed to becoming the most trusted healthcare provider in the United States by delivering improved care, value, and service through its integrated and industry-leading operations. The stock has surged by over 50% since the start of 2025. With a strong focus on customer needs, CVS Health Corporation (NYSE:CVS) reported positive results across its Health Care Benefits, Health Services, and Pharmacy and Consumer Wellness segments. The company continues working toward its goal of building a healthier future for the 185 million individuals it serves. CVS Health Corporation (NYSE:CVS) also updated its full-year 2025 guidance for GAAP diluted earnings per share, adjusted earnings per share, and operating cash flow to reflect strong performance across all business areas. However, the company is maintaining a cautious outlook for the rest of the year due to ongoing elevated cost trends and potential broader economic challenges. CVS Health Corporation (NYSE:CVS) has paid regular dividends to shareholders since 1997. The company's quarterly dividend comes in at $0.665 per share for a dividend yield of 3.90%, as of June 26. While we acknowledge the potential of CVS as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and . Disclosure. None. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A shadow Fed chief could lead to a ‘revolt' on the FOMC against Powell's successor, former vice chair warns
Former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Alan Blinder said naming a so-called shadow Fed chief well before Jerome Powell's term is up would sow confusion in financial markets and even set up a potential revolt against the eventual chair. Wall Street analysts also it is a self-defeating idea that would sink the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds. Naming a so-called shadow chair for the Federal Reserve well before Jerome Powell is due to step down as the top central banker could blow up spectacularly. President Donald Trump said earlier this month his pick to replace Powell is coming 'very soon,' and on Friday even vowed to tap someone who will do what he has been pressuring the Fed to do for months. 'If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I'm not going to put them in,' Trump said. 'I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates.' That's after repeated insults and name-calling directed at Powell, who has held off on lowering rates, citing the resilient economy and the risk that Trump's own tariffs could reaccelerate inflation. Powell's term as chair expires in May 2026, and the typical transition to a new one is about three to four months, meaning a replacement pick would be named as soon as January under normal circumstances. By naming a new chair well before that, the nominee could in theory jawbone markets into easing financial conditions, such as lowering bond yields, before taking office and undermine Powell's messaging in his final months. But in practice, the result could be chaos. Princeton professor Alan Blinder, who served as the Fed's vice chair in the 1990s, told CNN that a shadow chair is 'an absolutely horrible idea' because markets would have to sort through potentially very different stances at the same time. 'If they're not singing from the same playbook, which seems likely, this is just going to cause confusion in markets,' he warned. Similarly, Michael Brown, senior research strategist at Pepperstone, said in a note that a shadow chair would be self-defeating and create 'chaotic policy rhetoric, thus further weakening policy transmission.' And the perception of greater political influence over the Fed is likely to result in accelerated outflows from both the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds, pushing yields and other borrowing costs higher. 'Lastly, and probably of most annoyance for Trump, is that all of this nonsense actually makes the bar for the Fed to deliver a rate cut even higher, given mounting external pressure, and a desire to preserve policy independence,' Brown added. Fed officials make a point of sticking to central banking and not opining on politics, White House policies, or bills in Congress. On the flip side, they carefully guard the Fed's reputation for being independent from political pressure. Blinder flagged the risk that a shadow Fed chair would set up a big showdown in the usually consensus-driven Federal Open Market Committee, which sets rates. 'If he or she contradicts what Powell is saying, that will aggravate the FOMC, almost all of whose members will still be there when the new chair takes over,' he explained to CNN. 'It opens the door to an open or silent revolt against the chair, which is a rare thing in Fed history.' A schism is already emerging at the Fed. Trump-appointed governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman have said a rate cut in July could be justified, while Powell and other policymakers have said more months of data are necessary to make such a call. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the idea of a shadow Fed chair in an interview on CNBC on Friday, but also pointed out that Adriana Kugler's term as Fed governor expires in early 2026. 'So there is a chance that the person who is going to become the chair could be appointed in January, which would probably mean an October, November nomination,' he said. This story was originally featured on