The U.S. Supreme Court is set to deliberate on a pivotal case concerning the legality of South Carolina’s decision to cease funding Planned Parenthood due to its role in providing elective abortions. This move comes as the court agrees to review the petition in the case of Kerr v. Planned Parenthood.
Announced via a miscellaneous order, the court will address whether the Medicaid Act’s “any-qualified provider” provision allows Medicaid beneficiaries the right to select specific healthcare providers, a key aspect outlined in the petition.
The conservative legal group, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which pushed for the Supreme Court to hear this case, expressed approval of the court’s decision. John Bursch, ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy, commented in a statement that, “states like South Carolina should be free to determine that Planned Parenthood and other entities that peddle abortion are not qualified to receive taxpayer funding through Medicaid.”
In 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster directed the state’s Department of Health and Human Services to terminate Medicaid contracts with abortion service providers. This led to a legal challenge from Planned Parenthood and a patient, which resulted in a federal district court blocking the state’s order.
The decision was further upheld by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March, with Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson emphasizing that “this case is, and always has been, about whether Congress conferred an individually enforceable right for Medicaid beneficiaries to freely choose their healthcare provider.”
Wilkinson’s opinion highlighted the importance of maintaining access to Planned Parenthood for ensuring affordable and quality care, particularly for mothers and infants in South Carolina. He warned that closing Planned Parenthood clinics could strain other Medicaid-funded facilities in the state, limiting family planning services.
He stated, “This is precisely the prospect Congress wished to avoid. It did not wish to leave the right it so explicitly granted solely to the cumbersome machinery of agency appeals that permit patients only to challenge the denial of individual claims.”
This article was originally written by www.christianpost.com
