Opinion - Abortion is back at SCOTUS — and this time the case could destroy Medicaid
Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could strip millions of Medicaid recipients of their right to choose their health care provider, marking a new battle over reproductive rights in the U.S.
In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the court will decide whether Medicaid recipients can challenge a state's decision to block them from accessing care at Planned Parenthood Health Centers. At issue is the freedom of choice provision, a federal law establishing that Medicaid patients can obtain care from any qualified provider.
This case could set a precedent allowing states to dictate health care options based on political ideology rather than medical needs.
A ruling against Planned Parenthood would be a historic shift, permitting states to exclude providers simply because they offer abortion services — even though Medicaid funds are already prohibited from covering abortion in most cases. The freedom of choice provision is a longstanding and widely accepted law, so much that the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals repeatedly rejected South Carolina's attempts to terminate Planned Parenthood as a provider under Medicaid.
So why is the Supreme Court taking the case? Because anti-abortion activists are relentless in their attempts to defund Planned Parenthood. Ending Planned Parenthood's participation in Medicaid is part of a decades-long plan to financially hurt the organization and a Project 2025 strategy that has gained traction since Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and under the Trump administration.
It's no coincidence that the Alliance for Defending Freedom (the group behind the efforts to revoke the Food and Drug Administration's approval for the abortion medication mifepristone) is representing the state of South Carolina.
Based on last week's arguments, it was clear that the justices were skeptical about the case, and both liberal and conservative justices had major questions about the validity of South Carolina's argument.
Beyond politics, this case has major public health implications. First, attacks on Planned Parenthood threaten abortion and reproductive health access nationwide. If successful, the case could shutter clinics, cutting off access to critical abortion care for people across the U.S. — even in states where abortion remains legal after the Dobbs decision.
Millions could lose access to contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, HIV treatment, gender-affirming care, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and more. Research shows that limiting reproductive health services has horrific ripple effects, reducing access to the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health care.
Second, this case threatens the very structure of Medicaid, one of our most effective bipartisan anti-poverty measures. For over six decades, Medicaid has played a crucial role in helping people afford reproductive health services. Medicaid covers 1 in 5 people in the U.S. (just over 83 million people), the majority of whom are people of color because of systemic racism.
Medicaid is also the largest public funder of family planning services, covering 41 percent of births in the U.S. Expanding Medicaid services has improved access to prenatal and postpartum care, contraception, HIV screenings and abortion care. If the court allows states to block providers for ideological reasons, Medicaid patients could lose access to high-quality, affordable care that meets their needs.
The status of reproductive rights in the U.S. is changing quickly. Last week's oral arguments are coming just days after the Trump administration attempted to freeze millions of dollars in federal family planning grants, and weeks after the administration dismissed the case the Biden administration brought against Idaho, claiming that the state's abortion ban violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.
It is clear that the Medina case will have far-reaching impacts on the health and well-being of people who use the Medicaid program, and is part of a coordinated affront to reproductive health care in the U.S. It is crucial that everyone who cares about health care access and the freedom to choose your health care provider to understand the Medina case. All eyes must be on the Supreme Court as it decides on a core pillar of our nation's reproductive health safety net.
Dana M. Johnson, Ph.D., is a health disparities research postdoctoral fellow at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. Terri-Ann Thompson, Ph.D., is a senior research scientist at Ibis Reproductive Health.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
AP-NORC poll: Many say Medicaid, food stamps underfunded amid GOP cuts push
WASHINGTON -- As Republican senators consider President Donald Trump's big bill that could slash federal spending and extend tax cuts, a new survey shows most U.S. adults don't think the government is overspending on the programs the GOP has focused on cutting, like Medicaid and food stamps. Americans broadly support increasing or maintaining existing levels of funding for popular safety net programs, including Social Security and Medicare, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. They're more divided on spending around the military and border security, and most think the government is spending too much on foreign aid. The poll points to a disconnect between Republicans' policy agenda and public sentiment around the domestic programs that are up for debate in the coming weeks. Here's the latest polling data on how Americans view federal funding: Many Americans see Medicaid and food assistance programs as underfunded — even as Congress proposes significant cuts to Medicaid and food and nutrition assistance programs — and few say 'too much' money is going to these programs. About half of U.S. adults say 'too little' funding goes to Medicaid, which is a government health care coverage program for low-income people and people with certain disabilities. Nearly half, 45%, say food and nutrition assistance programs like food stamps, SNAP or EBT cards are underfunded, according to the poll. About 3 in 10 U.S. adults in each case say those programs are receiving 'about the right amount' of funding, indicating that most Americans likely do not want to see significant cuts to the two programs. About 2 in 10 say Medicaid is overfunded, while about one-quarter say that about food assistance programs. Republicans are especially likely to say 'too much' is spent on food and nutrition assistance programs when compared with Democrats and independents — 46% of Republicans say this, compared with about 1 in 10 Democrats and independents. When it comes to Medicaid, fewer Republicans, about one-third, say the government is spending 'too much.' About 6 in 10 Americans say there is not enough government money going toward Social Security, Medicare or education broadly. But Democrats overwhelmingly think 'too little' money is allocated to these areas, while Republicans are happier with the status quo. Very few think Medicare, Social Security and education are getting 'too much' funding. Only about 1 in 10 Republicans say this about either Medicare or Social Security. Roughly one-quarter of Republicans say too much is spent on education. When it comes to Social Security, about half of Republicans say 'too little' is spent, compared with about 7 in 10 Democrats. Americans are more divided on whether the government is devoting too much money to the military or border security. About 3 in 10 say the government is spending 'too much' on the military, while a similar share say the government is spending 'too little.' Close to 4 in 10 say the government is spending 'about the right amount.' Republicans are much less likely to say 'too little' is being spent on border security than they were before Trump took office again in January. Now, 45% of Republicans say 'too little' is being spent, down from 79% in a January AP-NORC poll. On the other hand, Democrats are more likely to say that 'too much' is being spent on border security. About half of Democrats now say this, compared with about 3 in 10 in January. The Trump administration has asked Congress for deep reductions to foreign aid programs, including cuts to global health programs and refugee resettlement initiatives. Foreign aid is one area with more general agreement that there is 'too much' federal spending. Most U.S. adults, 56%, say the U.S. government is spending too much on assistance to other countries, which is down from 69% in an AP-NORC poll from March 2023. There is a deep partisan divide on the issue, though. About 8 in 10 Republicans say the country is overspending on foreign aid, compared with about one-third of Democrats. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Trump Administration Considers Major Travel Ban Expansion: Live Updates
The Trump administration is considering a major expansion of its travel restrictions, potentially banning entry for citizens from 36 additional countries. This follows a previous order restricting travelers from 12 nations as part of a broader immigration crackdown. 07:29 AM EDT The Supreme Court decision that gives Trump cover for national ICE raids Left: American flags are seen during a protest outside the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship as the court hears arguments over the order in Washington, DC, on May... Left: American flags are seen during a protest outside the US Supreme Court over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship as the court hears arguments over the order in Washington, DC, on May 15, 2025. Right: Protesters march through downtown Los Angeles as demonstrations continue after a series of immigration raids began last Friday on June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles, California. Center: U.S. President Donald Trump arrives to sign a series of bills related to California's vehicle emissions standards during an event in the East Room of the White House on June 12, 2025 in Washington, DC. More Spencer Platt/DREW ANGERER/AFP/Something more than tear gas residue and smoke from burning Waymos hung over the Los Angeles streets hit by anti-ICE protests over the past week: a landmark Supreme Court decision from just over a decade ago. The Trump administration has argued that sanctuary jurisdictions like California, and L.A. specifically, are getting in the way of immigration enforcement, and that states and cities should be helping federal agents carrying out their work. That argument is, perhaps ironically, based on a Supreme Court precedent affirmed during the Obama administration. In 2012, the high court ruled in Arizona v. United States that it was the federal government's supreme responsibility to enforce immigration laws, and it superceded state and local law enforcement. "It has been interpreted, I have to say, remarkably consistently, by circuits from the Fifth Circuit to the Ninth Circuit, with some variations, to strike down or affirm district court decisions striking down state laws that have been viewed as attempts by the states to enforce immigration law," Emma Winger, deputy legal director at the American Immigration Council, told Newsweek. "Arizona's holdings are, in many ways, very clear." Read the full story by Dan Gooding on Newsweek.
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
As GOP pushes spending cuts, many say Medicaid and food stamps are underfunded: AP-NORC poll
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Republican senators consider President Donald Trump's big bill that could slash federal spending and extend tax cuts, a new survey shows most U.S. adults don't think the government is overspending on the programs the GOP has focused on cutting, like Medicaid and food stamps. Americans broadly support increasing or maintaining existing levels of funding for popular safety net programs, including Social Security and Medicare, according to the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research . They're more divided on spending around the military and border security, and most think the government is spending too much on foreign aid. The poll points to a disconnect between Republicans' policy agenda and public sentiment around the domestic programs that are up for debate in the coming weeks. Here's the latest polling data on how Americans view federal funding: Most want Medicaid and SNAP funding increased or kept as is Many Americans see Medicaid and food assistance programs as underfunded — even as Congress proposes significant cuts to Medicaid and food and nutrition assistance programs — and few say 'too much' money is going to these programs. About half of U.S. adults say 'too little' funding goes to Medicaid, which is a government health care coverage program for low-income people and people with certain disabilities. Nearly half, 45%, say food and nutrition assistance programs like food stamps, SNAP or EBT cards are underfunded, according to the poll. About 3 in 10 U.S. adults in each case say those programs are receiving 'about the right amount' of funding, indicating that most Americans likely do not want to see significant cuts to the two programs. About 2 in 10 say Medicaid is overfunded, while about one-quarter say that about food assistance programs. Republicans are especially likely to say 'too much' is spent on food and nutrition assistance programs when compared with Democrats and independents — 46% of Republicans say this, compared with about 1 in 10 Democrats and independents. When it comes to Medicaid, fewer Republicans, about one-third, say the government is spending 'too much.' Many believe Medicare, Social Security and education are underfunded About 6 in 10 Americans say there is not enough government money going toward Social Security, Medicare or education broadly. But Democrats overwhelmingly think 'too little' money is allocated to these areas, while Republicans are happier with the status quo. Very few think Medicare, Social Security and education are getting 'too much' funding. Only about 1 in 10 Republicans say this about either Medicare or Social Security. Roughly one-quarter of Republicans say too much is spent on education. When it comes to Social Security, about half of Republicans say 'too little' is spent, compared with about 7 in 10 Democrats. Americans are divided on money for border security and the military Americans are more divided on whether the government is devoting too much money to the military or border security. About 3 in 10 say the government is spending 'too much' on the military, while a similar share say the government is spending 'too little.' Close to 4 in 10 say the government is spending 'about the right amount.' Republicans are much less likely to say 'too little' is being spent on border security than they were before Trump took office again in January. Now, 45% of Republicans say 'too little' is being spent, down from 79% in a January AP-NORC poll . On the other hand, Democrats are more likely to say that 'too much' is being spent on border security. About half of Democrats now say this, compared with about 3 in 10 in January. Most US adults say foreign aid gets too much funding The Trump administration has asked Congress for deep reductions to foreign aid programs, including cuts to global health programs and refugee resettlement initiatives. Foreign aid is one area with more general agreement that there is 'too much' federal spending. Most U.S. adults, 56%, say the U.S. government is spending too much on assistance to other countries, which is down from 69% in an AP-NORC poll from March 2023 . There is a deep partisan divide on the issue, though. About 8 in 10 Republicans say the country is overspending on foreign aid, compared with about one-third of Democrats. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,158 adults was conducted June 5-9, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
