This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a stunning decision that assists the pro-life cause across America, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood's demand that a state be ordered to consider it a "qualified provider" and thus eligible for Medicaid program cash.
The justices ruled 6-3 in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that South Carolina is allowed to legally block the leading player in America's abortion industry from demanding payment through the Medicaid program.
Seven years ago, Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed an executive action telling the state's Department of Health and Human Services to take the abortion provider off of the state's Medicaid provider list.
His explanation was that funding to abortionists, even if not used directly for abortions, indirectly funded abortions and such public funding was banned by state law.
He said in a recent statement, "This case is about protecting the sanctity of life and preserving South Carolina's right to govern itself in a way that reflects the values of its people."
Justice Neal Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion of the court, and was joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
Ketanji Jackson, one of the three pro-abortion activists on the court, wrote a dissent that would have insisted taxpayers in the state revert to paying their cash to the abortionists, and was joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
McMaster had said, "South Carolina has made it clear that we value the right to life. Therefore, taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs. Just as I was in 2018, I am confident in our authority to terminate funding for Planned Parenthood, and I trust that the U.S. Supreme Court will agree."
A spokesperson for the abortion company's South Carolina's two sites claimed, "In just under two years, we've already heard countless stories of distress, bodily harm, persecution, and even death, from patients whose care was delayed or denied due to these bans. If anti-abortion lawmakers are allowed to act unchecked, they will revoke our access to this care altogether—with no exceptions. We must continue to take them to task—in the legislature, in the courts, and in our communities."
Priests for Life National Director Frank Pavone said, "This is one of the unfolding victories of the 2022 Dobbs decision and rightly shows deference to the states. People should not have the right to bar states from disqualifying abortion providers from receiving taxpayer money."
The court ruling concluded that Medicaid laws do not give individuals the right to bring federal lawsuits against states over this issue.
A statement from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a pro-life research arm, said, "South Carolina's victory marks a meaningful step forward in the fight to stop forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry. It offers a glimpse of what can be achieved nationwide with congressional passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, which would defund big abortion businesses in Medicaid through the budget reconciliation process. Although the Hyde Amendment and similar policies in the majority of states prevent taxpayer dollars from being spent on most abortions, abortion businesses – like Planned Parenthood – still receive hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers each year, freeing them to spend donations on abortion on demand, partisan politics and litigation instead of health care."
The ruling found the state's decision to exclude the abortionists from Medicaid's list of "any qualified provider," was allowed in this case as the plaintiff's lacked any legal grounds for challenging it.
Mat Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said, "The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully ruled that states can defund abortion. 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 harm women."
Liberty Counsel's briefs noted, "the law's language allows for states to disqualify providers that engage in unethical and illegal practices, in which Planned Parenthood has been credibly implicated."
The corporation boasts of doing more than 400,000 abortions a year, collecting nearly $800 million from U.S. taxpayers.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Director of Legal Affairs Katie Daniel said, "By rejecting Planned Parenthood's lawfare, the Court not only saves countless unborn babies from a violent death and their mothers from dangerously shoddy 'care,' it also protects Medicaid from exposure to thousands of lawsuits from unqualified providers that would jeopardize the entire program. Pro-life Republican leaders are eliminating government waste and prioritizing Medicaid for those who need it most – women, children, the poor, people with disabilities. Planned Parenthood was rightly disqualified. Multi-billion-dollar abortion businesses are not entitled to an unending money grab that forces taxpayers to fund America's #1 cause of death: abortion."
Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA Pro-Life America, said, "Planned Parenthood's taxpayer-funded gravy train is swiftly coming to an end. Its days of posing as a 'trusted health care provider' are over as the truth is exposed – most recently, by revelations of botched procedures, open sewage and other horrifying conditions at their facilities across America and the tragic death of yet another young woman following a late-term abortion. The profit-driven abortion industry isn't merely uninterested in fixing these systemic issues, the Planned Parenthood organization actually forbids donor funds from being spent on quality health care, funneling millions into political activism and litigation instead. Women, children and families deserve so much better – and with community health centers that offer comprehensive care outnumbering Planned Parenthoods 15 to one, women have real choices."
The ruling found the state's decision to exclude the abortionists from Medicaid's list of "any qualified provider," was allowed in this case as the plaintiff's lacked any legal grounds for challenging it.
Mat Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel, which filed an amicus brief in the case, said, "The U.S. Supreme Court has rightfully ruled that states can defund abortion. 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 harm women."
Liberty Counsel's briefs noted, "the law's language allows for states to disqualify providers that engage in unethical and illegal practices, in which Planned Parenthood has been credibly implicated."
The corporation was "implicated in unethical and illegal profiteering of aborted baby body parts revealed through undercover videos by undercover journalists Sandra Merritt and David Daleiden. This 'shadowy proliferation' of fetal tissue trafficking gives states like South Carolina a compelling interest to deem the abortion giant unqualified and keep Medicaid funds from subsidizing these 'abhorrent' practices," the statement said.
The court said federal law "does not clearly and unambiguously confer individual rights" in such cases.
"Congress sometimes allows private enforcement through §1983, which authorizes suits against state actors who deprive individuals of federal 'rights, privileges, or immunities.' But statutes create individual rights only in 'atypical case[s].' … To prove an enforceable right, plaintiffs must show the statute 'clear[ly] and unambiguous[ly]' uses 'rights-creating terms' with 'an unmistakable focus' on individuals."
It continued, "Congress may not wish to authorize private suits."
And, "Private enforcement requires showing States 'voluntarily and knowingly' consented to private suits, meaning Congress must 'clearly' and 'unambiguously' alert States that private enforcement was a funding condition."
