Supreme Court allows states to cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood
In April, a pro-choice demonstrator chants outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., ahead of oral arguments in South Carolina's effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
June 26 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the nonprofit's arm that covers South Carolina, can't sue the state over its closing off of the nonprofit's Medicaid funding because it provides abortions.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars," wrote Gov. Henry McMaster, R-S.C., in an X post Thursday.
"Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values," he added, "and today, we are finally victorious."
The 6-3 decision followed the court's ideological makeup, with the three liberal judges in dissent while the six conservative judges ruled in support.
The court's syllabus noted 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, which allows private parties to file suit against state officials who violate their Constitutional rights. However, in the opinion of the Court, which was delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, he wrote that "federal statutes do not automatically confer [Section 1983]-enforceable 'rights.'"
"This is especially true of spending-power statutes like Medicaid, where 'the typical remedy' for violations is federal funding termination, not private suits," he continued.
"No court has addressed whether that Medicare provision creates [Section 1983] rights," he later wrote.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, and she also referred to Section 1983.
"South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors," Jackson stated. "The Court abides South Carolina's request. I would not."
South Carolina had announced in July of 2018 that Planned Parenthood could no longer participate in the state's Medicaid program, under a state law that prohibits the use of its own public funding for abortions.
The order further affected patients in that it had the effect of also blocking Planned Parenthood patients from receiving services such as breast exams, sexually transmitted diseases and contraception.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic announced on its social media platform Thursday that, "Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that people using Medicaid in South Carolina no longer have the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood South Atlantic as their sexual and reproductive health care provider."
"If you are a patient using Medicaid, keep your appointment," the post continued. "We're still here to provide you with the low or no cost care you deserve."
The post concluded with "We're in this with you, and we aren't going anywhere."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
‘Having Medicaid keeps me alive': Illinois residents anxiously watch as Congress considers Medicaid cuts
Across Illinois, millions of people are anxiously awaiting the next move on a bill that would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid across the country. The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' would slash the program, which provides health care coverage to people with low incomes, in order to help pay for tax cuts and border and national security. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans say the bill would cut waste, fraud and abuse from Medicaid, providing coverage only to those who truly need it. But Democrats, health care leaders and patients say it would devastate those who rely on the program, and the hospitals that serve all patients. Across Illinois, 3.4 million people are on Medicaid — about one-fourth of the state's population. Depending on which proposals are adopted, Illinois could lose billions of dollars — a loss that could force the state to make difficult decisions about who gets coverage and what kind of coverage they get. Though the bill was still in flux as of Friday afternoon, multiple proposals in recent weeks have included work requirements for some people who receive Medicaid, changes to rules surrounding so-called provider taxes, and have threatened coverage for more than 770,000 Illinois residents who receive Medicaid as part of the Affordable Care Act's expansion of the program. 'No state, including Illinois, can backfill cuts in federal funding for Medicaid,' said the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, in response to Tribune questions. 'Cuts in federal funding will lead to reduced services and enrollment, putting the full range of Medicaid services at risk.' The Tribune spoke with three Illinois residents on Medicaid about what the cuts could mean to their lives. It's difficult to survive on $1,077 a month. That's how much Kristina Lewis receives in monthly Social Security disability payments. She gets disability payments from the federal government because she can't work due to mental health issues, heart failure and Type 1 diabetes, she said. The 64-year-old Alsip woman, however, has been able to stretch her small income, largely because she receives rental assistance from a local charity and because Medicare and Medicaid pay for her health care needs. She's one of nearly 400,000 people in Illinois who receive both Medicare and Medicaid because of disability, low income and/or age, according to KFF, a nonprofit organization focused on health policy. She's scared of what might happen if Medicaid, a state and federally funded program, is cut. She's on five different medications for heart failure alone. 'They do those cuts and I don't know how people like me on certain medications, how we're supposed to survive and live,' Lewis said. 'I know I'm not the only person out there that's terrified of what's going to happen.' House and Senate versions of the bill have included provisions that could make it more difficult for people who are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid to keep their Medicaid coverage, according to KFF. Lewis is also one of millions of people in Illinois who may end up dealing with the fallout of Illinois receiving fewer federal dollars overall, if certain proposals become law. Both the House and Senate have proposed changes that could limit the amount of money Illinois and many other states collect in so-called provider taxes, which help boost the amount of money states receive from the federal government for Medicaid. Proponents of provider taxes say they're a necessary way of funding Medicaid, while critics say provider taxes are a way for states to inflate how much money they receive from the federal government. Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas recently called provider taxes a 'Medicaid money laundering scam.' Though the concept of provider taxes may seem obscure and bureaucratic, in Illinois, they account for about $11 billion a year spent on Medicaid — about 25% of the state's spending for medical services, according to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Senate Republicans' proposal to reduce provider taxes suffered a major setback Thursday, after the Senate parliamentarian shot it down, saying it didn't follow procedural rules, according to The Associated Press. It was not yet clear Friday afternoon if changes to provider taxes would still be part of the final bill. Limiting provider taxes is a 'backdoor' way of cutting federal Medicaid funding for Illinois, said Kathy Waligora, a spokesperson for EverThrive Illinois, a nonprofit advocacy organization working to achieve reproductive justice. 'The provider tax is absolutely going to shrink the size of the Medicaid program in Illinois,' Waligora said of proposed cuts. 'Exactly what benefits are cut, what provider rates are cut, what eligibility will be cut remains to be seen, but it will be across Medicaid.' Lewis is worried about any kind of reduction to her Medicaid benefits. She said she first got on Medicaid about 10 to 15 years ago when she was living in a nursing home because of health issues. Eventually, her health improved to the point where she could live independently. She worries that if her health issues again become unmanageable, she might have to one day return to living in a nursing home. 'I would really, really struggle,' she said of if her Medicaid benefits were cut. 'My biggest fear is to end up in another nursing home. You lose your independence.' If she did have to live in a nursing home again, Medicaid may end up footing the substantial bill. In Illinois, Medicaid pays for about 68% of all nursing home care, according to the state Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Cornelia Simms, 60, of Auburn Gresham, fears work requirements could make it difficult for her to stay on Medicaid — even though she has a job. Under the bill, childless, able-bodied adults ages 19 to 64 would be required to spend at least 80 hours a month working, doing community service or going to school, in order to stay on Medicaid. Simms already works about 80 hours a month as a home health care aide — a profession she got into after spending years caring for her ailing mother. She discovered that she enjoys helping elderly people and stuck with it after her mom passed away. About 70% of Illinois residents on Medicaid already work, according to KFF. But Simms worries about the paperwork, and the potential problems it could create if she's subject to work requirements. The bill would require states to verify at least twice a year that Medicaid beneficiaries are meeting work requirements. Simms is concerned about being asked to prove that she's eligible twice a year, especially because she said she prefers to verify her eligibility in person, which can require time away from work. It can be tough for her to take days off from work because the person she cares for relies on her help, Simms said. 'I'm mainly her sole person to take her to the hospital, grocery stores and do all those things with her,' Simms said. 'If I have to take off work to see about my Medicaid then she will be lacking the daily things that she needs.' The extra paperwork can also create administrative complications. Once, Simms said she forgot to submit paperwork to verify her continued eligibility for Medicaid. Simms lost her coverage, and it took more than six months to get it back, she said. During that time, she canceled doctor appointments and generally tried not to get medical care. 'I tried not to catch a cold,' Simms said. 'I just prayed and held out.' In Illinois, anywhere from 270,000 to 500,000 people on Medicaid may end up losing coverage for administrative reasons, if work requirements proposed by House Republicans went into effect, according to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. 'What we see in other states where there are work requirements is that having the hoops to jump through, the red tape and the administrative burden keep people from accessing and enrolling in health care,' said Anusha Thotakura, executive director of Citizen Action/Illinois, a public interest coalition that's been working with partners across the state to hold events and drive action to fight Medicaid cuts. 'Many eligible people who are working will still lose access if these requirements are put into place,' Thotakura said. Without Medicaid, Simms said it would be difficult for her to afford health care. She's in the process now of getting about $4,000 worth of dental work, most of which is being paid for by Medicaid, she said. 'No person, unless you've got some money, can afford it, not on a 9-5 (job), not the lower class or middle class,' Simms said of health care. 'It's impossible.' Isaiah Rogers was up in a tree, wielding a chain saw when his vision began to blur. He didn't know what was wrong with him, but he knew he couldn't continue his work trimming trees. Dizzy and in pain, Rogers went home, rested and popped ibuprofen. Eventually, Rogers' son convinced him to go to the hospital. There, he was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and told that if he had waited a couple of more days to seek care, he might have died. The hospital helped sign Rogers up for Medicaid, he said. Since that scare several years ago, Rogers has faithfully been going to his doctor appointments and taking insulin and other medications, he said. He has not been able to return to his job trimming trees, and has been working small side jobs. He and his son have been staying with a friend to help them get by. The 61-year-old West Pullman man relies on Medicaid to pay for his doctors' visits and the medications that 'keep me above water.' Rogers is now worried about losing that lifeline. A recent version of the bill proposed work requirements not only for childless able-bodied Medicaid recipients, but also for adults with children older than 14. Rogers' son is 12. The single father is concerned that there might come a point when he would be subject to the proposed requirement to work 80 hours a week or lose his Medicaid coverage. Between his health issues and caring for his son, as well as his lack of a high school diploma, Rogers doesn't think it would be possible for him get a job working 80 hours a month. Rogers drops his son off and picks him up from school each day, taking city buses with him to and from the school. He doesn't envision letting his son take the buses himself. 'At 14, no, not in Chicago,' Rogers said of his son taking the bus alone. 'People who don't ride the bus and don't live in our 'hood, they don't know what's going on. I'm not going to subject my son to that danger.' He knows the dangers all too well. Rogers was incarcerated when he was younger, saying he was once a 'destroyer' of his community. He's since tried to turn his life around, working with Community Organizing and Family Issues to create positive change. But his life now, as he knows it, depends on having Medicaid. He's confident he'll lose Medicaid if he's required to work 80 hours a month. He worries that if he loses Medicaid, he'll no longer be able to afford insulin and his other medications, and he may slip into a diabetic coma or suffer a stroke. 'Having Medicaid keeps me alive,' Rogers said. 'It keeps me going, with the consistent doctors appointments, with the different types of medications. 'Having Medicaid helps me stay healthy to let me take care of my son,' Rogers said.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
The Memo: SCOTUS clears the way for Trump – and for his successors
The Supreme Court's decision in a birthright citizenship case, handed down on Friday, has ramifications way beyond President Trump. The big, long-term impact is the granting of greater leeway to future presidents as well as to the current one. The power of the courts to curb actions emanating from the Oval Office has been significantly diluted. Whether that is a good or bad thing is in the eye of the beholder — refracted through the lens of party loyalties. For now, the decision is being celebrated by Republicans and lamented by Democrats. Those roles are nearly sure to reverse the next time a Democratic president moves into the White House. The high court did not, in fact, weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order to shift the definition of birthright citizenship. Trump wants to change the automatic assumption that people born in the United States are automatically American citizens, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. That push is framed by immigration hawks as a battle to thwart the concept of 'anchor babies' – infants born in the United States, allegedly in order to put their unauthorized-migrant parents effectively outside the reach of deportation efforts. But liberals argue the Trump effort is unconstitutional on its face, given the Fourteenth Amendment's apparently clear statement that, 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' Liberals also assert that the clause about 'jurisdiction' is largely beside the point where immigration is concerned, since unauthorized migrants are still subject to the laws of the United States while they reside within its borders. In any event, lower courts have found against the Trump administration on the question, the administration has appealed and it is likely that the specific question will end up before the justices yet again. But for now, the court by a 6-3 majority has circumscribed the ability of district courts to block a law or presidential action. The ruling was, in the end, akin to a party line vote, the six conservative justices – three of whom were nominated by Trump during his first term – outvoting the three liberals. Lower courts will no longer be able to issue a 'universal injunction' – that is, an injunction that bars enforcement of a presidential order nationwide. Instead, decisions in those district courts will only be binding upon the parties involved in each case. 'A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote, delivering the majority opinion. Barrett also warned about those – including her colleague Justice Ketanj Brown Jackson – who she said would try to thwart an 'imperial presidency' by empowering an imperial judiciary instead. The new reality will be beneficial to the current president and his successors. But it could also be messy, given that it opens a up a vista in which presidential edicts are lawful in one set of states – presumably those whose ideological coloring is the same as that of the incumbent in the Oval Office – and unlawful in the rest, at least until the Supreme Court settles the matter. Trump, who made a hastily convened appearance in the White House briefing room after the ruling was announced, contended that the court had delivered 'a monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law.' It was, to be sure, a major win at the nexus of politics and jurisprudence for Trump and his allies. The president and key aides like Stephen Miller have repeatedly assailed judges who ruled against them as exceeding their legitimate powers and even engaging in a 'judicial coup.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the main dissenting opinion, objected in strenuous terms, saying that her minority position was spurred by her desire to 'not be complicit in so grave an attack on our system of law.' 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.' Sotomayor also issued a bleak warning about the way in which such an expansive view of executive power could be used in the future to hollow out the rights that had been previously enjoyed – just as the doctrine of birthright citizenship had been seen as settled law until relatively recently. The liberal justice, nominated to the high court by President Obama, was also far more willing than her conservative colleagues to engage with the merits of the arguments over birthright citizenship. She alleged that the focus on universal injunctions amounted merely to the Trump administration playing a 'different game' because it had no realistic chance of making its more limited interpretation of birthright citizenship work. On the latter point, she wrote, Trump had 'an impossible task in light of the Constitution's text, history, this Court's precedents, federal law, and Executive Branch practice.' On the bigger question of how the legal processes will now work, some worries were voiced even by one of the conservative judges who concurred in the ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Referring to the period where different court orders could hold sway in different parts of the nation, Kavanaugh argued that 'there often (perhaps not always, but often) should be a nationally uniform answer on whether a major new federal statute, rule, or executive order can be enforced throughout the United States during the several-year interim period until its legality is finally decided on the merits.' He added: 'It is not especially workable or sustainable or desirable to have a patchwork scheme, potentially for several years, in which a major new federal statute or executive action of that kind applies to some people or organizations in certain States or regions, but not to others.' Such concerns are the thorniest questions to emerge from Friday's decision. The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Republicans race toward crucial vote on Trump megabill despite uncertainties
Senate Republicans are racing into a crucial weekend in their effort to pass President Trump's mammoth tax and spending bill despite not knowing whether they have the votes to advance it or what some aspects of the final package will look like. GOP leaders are eyeing an initial procedural vote Saturday afternoon to kick off floor consideration of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' If it clears a simple majority threshold, the chamber would debate the bill before moving to a 'vote-a-rama,' during which unlimited amendments can be brought to the floor, before a final vote. Senate Republican leaders took a big step forward when they unveiled most of the final version of bill text shortly before midnight on Friday, reflecting changes required by the Senate parliamentarian and negotiations among various groups. But whether they'll be able to clear that simple majority is a major question, leaving leadership hustling to court the holdouts. 'We will find out tomorrow,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said with a laugh on Friday when asked if he has the votes. Republicans can lose no more than three members, and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has long said he is opposed to the bill as long as the $5 trillion debt ceiling hike is included. Beyond that, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) loudly proclaimed on Friday that he is a 'no' on proceeding to the bill over the Senate's planned rollback of an existing federal cap on provider taxes, a deeper cut to Medicaid than the freeze in the House-passed measure that Tillis prefers. Without changes, he insisted he would vote against it, saying it would be 'devastating' to the Tar Heel State as it could lose more than $30 billion as a result. Tillis is up for reelection next year and has warned about the political consequences of keeping that portion of the bill as is. 'I'm looking at this through a policy and political lens. I think this would be extraordinarily difficult politically for my Republican leadership in the legislature to manage,' he said leaving the Capitol on Friday. 'That's what's driving my 'no' vote.' Leadership is still working him hard, though. Tillis was engaged in multiple conversations with GOP leaders on the floor during a vote on Friday. Hours later, GOP leaders inserted a delay in implementing the provider tax from fiscal 2027 until fiscal 2028 with an eye toward winning over the North Carolina Republican and others concerned about Medicaid cuts. Not all Republicans are convinced Tillis will follow through, with many remembering his last minute flip to support Pete Hegseth's nomination to lead the Pentagon earlier this year. 'He sure sounds like he says he would [vote 'no'],' one Senate GOP member said. 'There's a little bit of a pattern here.' But Tillis's vote isn't Thune's only problem. There's a trio of conservative members — Sens. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) — who have bemoaned the lack of spending cuts in the massive package. The three have indicated they may vote as a bloc. Johnson told reporters on Friday night that he was still a holdout pending text, which arrived hours later. A pair of key moderates, Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), had also indicated they are in a similar spot absent text. Murkowski on Friday also indicated she wasn't happy with the provisions regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Asked briefly about the party's SNAP proposals on Friday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told The Hill, 'We're still in trouble on SNAP.' 'The implementation is still next to impossible for us,' she said. Leadership has made a concerted effort to court Murkowski in the final hours, though, as they plan to add additional grants tied to SNAP to the final language, with the aim of helping Alaska specifically. 'We've made some adjustments based on input we've gotten from them in the last few days,' Thune told Politico about SNAP language alterations, referring to Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska). Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) also remains a wild card over concerns about Medicaid provisions and their impact on rural hospitals, concerns Murkowski and Collins have also raised. GOP Leaders included a fund in the final version to bolster them of at least $25 billion in an effort to win over some of the moderates, though Hawley, Collins and others were hoping that number would be higher. 'More money for the rural [hospital] fund is good. But I don't know yet,' Hawley said, rattling off the questions he is still unsure of. 'How much money [for the fund]? What's the delay [for the provider tax]? What are the final provisions?' Already the timing for the vote is beginning to slip. Thune on Friday afternoon told lawmakers to expect a noon vote, though he warned the timeline was 'aspirational.' Republicans are now expected to meet over lunch on Saturday before the chamber reconvenes at 2 p.m. EDT, with the hope of wrapping up the 'Byrd Bath' with the parliamentarian beforehand. Meetings with the parliamentarian were ongoing on Friday night to nail down clearance on key items, including on Medicaid. But lawmakers did see progress on some key items Friday, including on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap that has proven to be an arduous battle between the Senate GOP and House members from high-tax states. According to multiple Senate GOP members, the $40,000 deduction cap House members agreed to with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is set to stick, though it will only last for five years. The cap would then drop to $10,000 for the following five years. 'I think we're very, very close,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters after the Senate GOP's luncheon. Bessent and Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), the upper chamber's informal liaison to the House, has huddled and talked with key SALT members multiple times this week in search of a deal. Even after the Senate begins consideration of the bill, timing could be fluid. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has threatened to drag out proceedings by having the entire bill, which runs more than 1,000 pages, be read aloud on the floor by the Senate clerk. Johnson pulled a similar move in 2021 by having the clerk read the entire American Rescue Plan, an endeavor that lasted six hours. Mullin predicted that could take more than twice as much time — potentially delaying what will be a high-stakes weekend for Trump and leadership. Democrats are also expected to propose dozens of amendments designed to force Republicans into tough votes. 'It's clear we're not [going to have] unanimity on some of this. That's why God made votes. That's why God made amendments,' said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). 'I think everybody recognizes that it's time for us to vote.' Alexander Bolton contributed.
