Another Way to Defund Planned Parenthood?

Last week, we reported The Trump administration’s proposed freeze of federal funds has to do with whether Planned Parenthood or their partners are complying with the Executive Order outlawing DEI in the federal government and the private sector.

So far, there has been no news on whether the investigation has progressed, and the question of withholding funding is still uncertain.  Although the federal government is considering defunding Planned Parenthood over DEI infractions, the State of South Carolina is working to prohibit federal funds due to the State’s moral objection to abortion. The standoff between South Carolina and Planned Parenthood reached the Supreme Court with oral arguments commencing yesterday.

The case in question involves South Carolina, which has a restrictive abortion law. It requires physicians to perform an ultrasound on the woman to detect whether a heartbeat is present. If one is observed, the physician is prohibited from aborting the baby. Usually, a heartbeat can be observed between the fifth and sixth week of pregnancy.

South Carolina wants to prohibit Planned Parenthood from participating in Medicaid because the organization provides abortions. It is essential to note the lawsuit has nothing to do with abortion per se, but rather whether a Medicaid recipient has the right to pick their preferred healthcare provider, even Planned Parenthood, and bring legal action if they are denied the choice. However, the outcome of the suit will have ramifications either for or against the abortion industry in South Carolina. The Trump administration is siding with South Carolina by filing a “friend of the court” brief, arguing that Congress never intended patients to have a right to sue, as the language is absent from the law.

What can be gleaned from the early stages of the case is a portal into some of the Justice’s thinking about how they might vote. Justice Alito said the court would have to find “something quite extraordinary” to conclude patients have the right to sue. Gorsuch found it hard to believe that Congress would include language in the Medicaid law stating a person’s right to choose their doctor but did not include the permission to sue. Kavanaugh mentioned patients have recourse under state laws. The conservative judges also raised concerns about the potential for an influx of lawsuits if patients were allowed to sue.

In response, Roberts reiterated the Medicaid law allows people to choose their doctor, and if they can’t, what remedies do they have? The others were concerned that the State could refuse to fund any medical interventions for a myriad of reasons. Moreover, Amy Coney Barrett inquired whether a patient could be disqualified from Medicaid due to allegations of medical malpractice. She concluded in situations like this, Congress would have wanted the plaintiff to sue.

Although the comments of the Justices are never a predictor of how they will decide, it appears the lines may have already been drawn. Their decision is slated to be delivered sometime in June. However, from the opening comments of the Justices, the decision will probably be decided on a 5-4 vote.

Whether South Carolina wins or loses, there are some promising developments arising from this suit. South Carolina is bringing to light the importance of reducing abortions in their state by going after Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of the barbaric practice. The case is also part of the pro-life fight by attempting to reduce taxpayer money to procure abortions.  They may seem like small gains, but everything helps in destroying the culture of death.

No matter what it takes, the efforts of Christians on all fronts must resist this horrid practice. The more ways pro-life can use to fight against abortion, the better.