SCOTUS Medicaid Decision Could Defund Planned Parenthood
Source: Kevin Hagen / Getty
A new decision from the ultraconservative SCOTUS majority involving Medicaid dealt another blow to reproductive rights in a decision that could set the stage for states to defund Planned Parenthood. In Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic , the Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that the federal law at issue does not allow Medicaid recipients the right to sue to enforce their choice of provider.
According to the ultraconservative majority, Medicaid recipients do have a right under federal law to choose their own provider. But they cannot sue to enforce that right even where a state takes the decision away from them, as is the case in South Carolina.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, joined by patient Julie Edwards, challenged a 2018 South Carolina executive order that banned access to federal Medicaid funding for non-abortion health care if a clinic also provided abortions. Edwards reportedly joined the litigation as an impacted patient who had found supportive doctors and care at Planned Parenthood.
The decision also comes just days after the third anniversary of the devastating SCOTUS decision in Dobbs. Emboldened by the win, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster defended the policy in a statement issued shortly after the Court's decision, focusing on abortion and not the people who would lose access to necessary healthcare provided by Planned Parenthood. Medicaid already cannot pay for abortions except in very limited circumstances.
Writing a stern dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called out her colleagues in the majority for disregarding existing Supreme Court precedent and 'enforceable right' created by the Medicaid Act's free-choice-of-provider provision. Drawing on history and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, Jackson explained why and how Congress gave private citizens the right to sue to enforce rights made available by the Constitution and other federal laws.
In this case, she said that the 'provision states that every Medicaid plan 'must… provide that… any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required,'' Jackson wrote. 'And Congress reinforced its rights-creating intent by making the provision mandatory—it specifically inserted the word 'must' into the statute—to make clear that the obligation imposed on the States was binding. If Congress did not want to protect Medicaid recipients' freedom to choose their own providers, it would have likely avoided using a combination of classically compulsory language and explicit individual-centric terminology.'
In many ways, the decision leaves Medicaid recipients without recourse in states with leadership fixated on defunding Planned Parenthood or otherwise instituting political litmus tests for healthcare. Responding to the decision, South Carolina State Senators Margie Bright Matthews and Tameika Isaas Devine called the ruling a 'gut punch' to those who rely on Planned Parenthood for basic healthcare.
'By allowing the state to block a qualified provider from the Medicaid program, the Court has put politics ahead of public health,' the senators wrote. 'The real price of this decision will be paid by patients, especially Black, Brown, and rural women who now face fewer options and greater barriers to care.'
In a statement posted to Instagram, Planned Parenthood called the decision an 'injustice.'
'SCOTUS's decision in Medina v. PPSAT today is a blow to Medicaid patients' freedom to access health care at their chosen provider,' the statement read. 'It also effectively may allow lawmakers to deny people the care they need and trust. Public officials should not decide where or how you get the quality, affordable health care you need.'
As noted in a May 2025 policy brief from KFF, defunding Planned Parenthood has been a major aim of anti-abortion groups and policymakers for many years. Nationally, 1 in 3 women reported receiving care at a Planned Parenthood Clinic. According to KFF, an estimated 36% of South Carolina women aged 19 to 64 received Medicaid in 2023.
Now, nearly 60 years after Congress established Medicaid, Congressional Republicans propose deep cuts to Medicaid and reproductive health more broadly. The impact of limiting support for reproductive healthcare could have dire implications for Black women and their families.
South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain called out the denial of healthcare based on an anti-abortion agenda. She noted the increased barrier to treatment for people seeking cancer screenings, STI treatment, contraception, and other preventative care services.
'This case was never about fiscal responsibility; it was about targeting a trusted healthcare provider for purely ideological, partisan reasons,' Spain said. 'Let's call this what it is: an effort to control people's bodies, silence their choices, and limit their options. South Carolinians deserve better.'
SEE ALSO:
Kendrick Sampson's BLD PWR Teams Up With SisterSong And GBEF For Houston Juneteenth Event
Adriana Smith's Family Says Goodbye, Asks For Prayers For Newborn Son
SEE ALSO
SCOTUS Medicaid Decision Could Defund Planned Parenthood was originally published on newsone.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
40 minutes ago
- Atlantic
‘I'm Not Quite Sure How to Respond to This Presentation'
The past three weeks have been auspicious for the anti-vaxxers. On June 9, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. purged the nation's most important panel of vaccine experts: All 17 voting members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which sets recommendations for the use of vaccines and determines which ones must be covered through insurance and provided free of charge to children on Medicaid, were abruptly fired. The small, ragtag crew of replacements that Kennedy appointed two days later met this week for the first time, amid lots of empty chairs in a conference room in Atlanta. They had come to talk about the safety of vaccines: to raise concerns about the data, to float hypotheses of harm, to issue findings. The resulting spectacle was set against a backdrop of accelerating action from the secretary. On Wednesday, Kennedy terminated more than $1 billion in U.S. funding for Gavi, a global-health initiative that supports the vaccination of more than 65 million children every year. Lyn Redwood, a nurse practitioner and the former president of Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine organization that Kennedy used to chair, was just hired as a special government employee. (She presented at the ACIP meeting yesterday.) A recently posted scientific document on the ACIP website that underscored the safety of thimerosal, an ingredient in a small proportion of the nation's flu vaccines, had been taken down, a committee member said, because the document 'was not authorized by the office of the secretary.' (A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told me in an email that this document was provided to the ACIP members in their meeting briefing packets.) What's clear enough is that, 61 years after ACIP's founding, America's vaccination policy is about to be recooked. Now we've had a glimpse inside the kitchen. The meeting started with complaints. 'Some media outlets have been very harsh on the new members of this committee,' said Martin Kulldorff, a rangy Swedish biostatistician and noted COVID contrarian who is now ACIP's chair. (Kuldorff was one of the lead authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a controversial proposal from the fall of 2020 to isolate seniors and other vulnerable people while reopening the rest of society.) In suggesting that he and Kennedy's other appointees are opposed to vaccination, Kulldorff said, journalists were misleading the public, weakening trust in public health, and fanning 'the flames of vaccine hesitancy.' This was, in fact, the most pugnacious comment of the two-day meeting, which otherwise unfolded in a tone of fearmongering gentility. Robert Malone, a doctor and an infectious-diseases researcher who has embraced the 'anti-vaccine' label and published a conspiracy-theory-laden book that details government psyops against the American people, was unfailingly polite in his frequent intimations about the safety of vaccines, often thanking CDC staff for their hard work and lucid presentations. With his thick white beard, calm affect, and soldierly diction—Malone ended many of his comments by saying, 'Over' into the microphone—he presented less as a firebrand than as, say, the commanding officer of a submarine. When Malone alluded to the worry, for example, that spike proteins from the mRNA-based COVID vaccines linger in the body following injection, he did so in respectful, even deferential, language, suggesting that the public would benefit from greater study of possible 'delayed effects' of immune-system activation. The CDC's traditional approach—its 'world-leading, rigorous' one, he clarified—might be improved by examining this question. A subject-matter expert responded that the CDC has been keeping tabs on real-world safety data on those vaccines for nearly five years, and has not detected any signs of long-term harm. Later, Malone implied that COVID or its treatments might have, through some unspecified, bank-shot mechanism, left the U.S. population more susceptible to other illnesses. There was a 'paradoxical, sudden decrease' in flu cases in 2020 and 2021, he noted, followed by a trend of worsening harm. A CDC staffer pointed out that the decrease in flu during those years was not, in fact, a paradox; well-documented shifts in people's health behavior had temporarily reduced the load of many respiratory illnesses during that same period. But Malone pressed on: 'Some members of the scientific community have concern that they're coming out of the COVID pandemic—exposure to the virus, exposure to various countermeasures—there may be a pattern of broad-based, uh, energy,' he said, his eyes darting up for a moment as he said the word, 'that might contribute to increased severity of influenza disease.' He encouraged the agency to 'be sensitive to that hypothesis.' Throughout these and other questions from the committee members, the CDC's subject-matter experts did their best to explain their work and respond to scattershot technical and conceptual concerns. 'The CDC staff is still attempting to operate as an evidence-based organization,' Laura Morris, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Medicine, who has attended dozens of ACIP meetings in the past and attended this one as a nonvoting liaison to the committee from the American Academy of Family Physicians, told me. 'There was some tension in terms of the capacity of the committee to ask and understand the appropriate methodological questions. The CDC was trying to hold it down.' That task became more difficult as the meeting progressed. 'The new ACIP is an independent body composed of experienced medical and public health experts who evaluate evidence, ask hard questions, and make decisions based on scientific integrity,' the HHS spokesperson told me. 'Bottom line: this process reflects open scientific inquiry and robust debate, not a pre-scripted narrative.' The most vocal questioner among the new recruits—and the one who seemed least beholden to a script—was the MIT business-school professor Retsef Levi, a lesser-known committee appointee who sat across the table from Malone. A scruffy former Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer with a ponytail that reached halfway down his back, Levi's academic background is in data modeling, risk management, and organizational logistics. He approached the proceedings with a swaggering incredulity, challenging the staffers' efforts and pointing out the risks of systematic errors in their thinking. (In a pinned post on his X profile, Levi writes that 'the evidence is mounting and indisputable that mRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death'—a position entirely at odds with copious data presented at the meeting.) Shortly before the committee's vote to recommend a new, FDA-approved monoclonal antibody for preventing RSV in infants, Levi noted that he'd spent some time reviewing the relevant clinical-trial data for the drug and another like it, and found some worrying patterns in the statistics surrounding infant deaths. 'Should we not be concerned that maybe there are some potential safety signals?' he asked. But these very data had already been reviewed, at great length, in multiple settings: by the FDA, in the course of drug approval, and by the dozens of members of ACIP's relevant work group for RSV, which had, per the committee's standard practice, conducted its own staged analysis of the new treatment before the meeting and reached consensus that its benefits outweighed its risks. Levi was uncowed by any reference to this prior work. 'I'm a scientist, but I'm also a father of six kids,' he told the group; speaking as a father, he said, he personally would be concerned about the risk of harm from this new antibody for RSV. In the end, Levi voted against recommending the antibody, as did Vicky Pebsworth, who is on the board of an anti-vaccine organization and holds a Ph.D. in public health and nursing. The five other members voted yes. That 5–2 vote aside, the most contentious issue on the meeting's schedule concerned the flu shots in America that contain thimerosal, which has been an obsession of the anti-vaccine movement for the past few decades. Despite extensive study, vaccines with thimerosal have not been found to be associated with any known harm in human patients, yet an unspecified vote regarding their use was slipped into the meeting's agenda in the absence of any work-group study or presentation from the CDC's staff scientists. What facts there were came almost exclusively from Redwood, the nurse who used to run Kennedy's anti-vaccine organization. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that at least one citation from her posted slides had been invented. That reference was removed before she spoke yesterday. (HHS did not address a request for comment on this issue in its response to me.) The only one of Kennedy's appointees who had ever previously served on the committee—the pediatrician Cody Meissner—seemed perplexed, even pained, by the proceedings. 'I'm not quite sure how to respond to this presentation,' he said when Redwood finished. He went on to sum up his concerns: 'ACIP makes recommendations based on scientific evidence as much as possible. And there is no scientific evidence that thimerosal has caused a problem.' Alas, Meissner's warnings were for nought. Throughout the meeting, he came off as the committee's last remaining, classic 'expert'—a vaccine scientist clinging to ACIP's old ways—but his frequent protestations were often bulldozed over or ignored. In the end, his was the only vote against the resolutions on thimerosal. Throughout the two-day meeting, Kuldorff kept returning to a favorite phrase: evidence-based medicine. 'Secretary Kennedy has given this committee a clear mandate to use evidence-based medicine,' he said on Wednesday morning; 'The purpose of this committee is to follow evidence-based medicine,' he said on Wednesday afternoon; 'What is important is using evidence-based medicine,' he said again when the meeting reached its end. All told, I heard him say evidence-based at least 10 times during the meeting. (To be fair, critics of Kuldorff and his colleagues also love this phrase.) But the committee was erratic in its posture toward the evidence from the very start; it cast doubt on CDC analyses and substituted lay advice and intuition for ACIP's normal methods of assessing and producing expert consensus. 'Decisons were made based on feelings and preferences rather than evidence,' Morris told me after the meeting. 'That's a dangerous way to make public-health policy.'
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
California will see ‘devastating' healthcare cuts under GOP bill, Newsom says
As many as 3.4 million Californians could lose their state Medi-Cal health insurance under the budget bill making its way through the U.S. Senate, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday. Newsom said the proposed cuts to healthcare in the 'one big, beautiful bill,' a cornerstone of President Trump's second-term agenda, could force the closure of struggling rural hospitals, reduce government food assistance for those in need and drive up premiums for people who rely on Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health insurance marketplace. 'This is devastating,' Newsom said. 'I know that word is often overused in this line of work, but this is, in many ways, an understatement of how reckless and cruel and damaging this is.' Medicaid provides health insurance for about 1 in 5 Americans and generally uses income, rather than employment, as a condition for enrollment. Roughly 15 million Californians, more than a third of the state, are on Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid, with some of the highest percentages in rural counties that supported Trump in the November election. More than half of California children receive healthcare coverage through Medi-Cal. The Senate is still debating its version of the bill. But the current version would require many Medicaid recipients to prove every six months that they work, volunteer or attend school at least 80 hours per month. States would be required to set up their work eligibility verification systems by the end of 2026, just after the midterm elections. States that do not set up those systems could lose federal Medicaid funding. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters last month that the aim of the policy was to encourage poor Americans to contribute and 'return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this month that the requirements would cut about $344 billion in Medicaid spending over a decade and leave 4.8 million more people uninsured. Health policy experts warn that work requirements can lead to people who are eligible, but can't prove it, losing their benefits. Newsom said 5.1 million people in California would need to go through the work verification progress and about one-third would 'likely' meet the requirements. The other two-thirds would 'go through the labyrinth of manual verification,' Newsom said. He said 3 million people in California could lose coverage through the new Medicaid work requirements, and 400,000 more could lose their insurance if they were required to re-verify their eligibility every six months. Newsom said that the state's estimate was based on the number of people who dropped off Medicaid in New Hampshire and Arkansas after those states briefly implemented their own work requirements. Last year, California became the first state in the nation to offer healthcare to low-income undocumented immigrants. The expansion, approved by Newsom and the Democratic-led Legislature, has cost the state billions and drawn sharp criticism from Republicans. Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City), who has previously called on Newsom to walk back that coverage, said on social media Friday that Newsom and Democratic legislative leaders had 'obliterated' the healthcare system. Newsom's budget proposal in May proposed substantial cuts to the healthcare program for undocumented immigrants, including freezing new enrollment in 2026, requiring adults to pay $100 monthly premiums and cutting full dental coverage. Lawmakers ultimately agreed to require undocumented immigrant adults ages 19 to 59 to pay $30 monthly premiums beginning July 2027. Their plan adopts Newsom's enrollment cap but gives people three months to reapply if their coverage lapses instead of immediately cutting off their eligibility. Democrats agreed to cut full dental coverage for adult immigrants who are undocumented, but delayed the change until July 1, 2026. In Congress, the GOP bill could also pose a serious threat to 16 struggling hospitals in 14 rural counties, which received a $300-million lifeline in interest-free loans in 2023, Newsom said. He said the Republican members of Congress in California who supported the bill and represent rural parts of California, including Central Valley Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) and Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), are 'gutting an already vulnerable system.' Some senators are pushing to change a requirement that would require states to freeze and cut by half the tax they impose on Medicaid providers, slashing a key source of funding for rural hospitals. Michelle Baass, the director of the California Department of Health Care Services, said that change could be 'fatal for the many rural and critical-access hospitals that are already financially strained.' Newsom said in aggregate, the cuts could threaten California's progress in reducing the share of residents without health insurance, which stands at about 6.4%.
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Traditional Medicare to add prior authorizations
Medicare is requiring more pre-treatment approvals in its fee-for-service program in a bid to root out unnecessary care, federal regulators announced Friday. The big picture: Traditional Medicare historically hasn't required prior authorizations to access most drugs or services, a major perk for enrollees. Prior authorization in privately-run Medicare Advantage plans has become a hot-button issue, with Congress and federal regulators working to rein in the practice. Federal inspectors found in 2022 that prior authorization in MA prevented some seniors from getting medically necessary care. Major health insurers this week made a voluntary pledge to streamline and improve the prior authorization process across all health insurance markets. State of play: Medicare's innovation center announced that it will solicit applications from companies to run the prior authorization program. Medicare is looking for companies with experience using AI and other tools to manage pre-approvals for other payers, and with clinicians who can conduct medical reviews to check coverage determinations. The program will start Jan. 1, 2026 and run through the end of 2031. It will only apply to providers and patients in New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona and Washington. The change will apply to 17 items and services, including skin substitutes, deep brain stimulation for Parkinson's Disease, impotence treatment and arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis. CMS selected the services based on previous reports and evidence of fraud, waste and abuse, as well as what's already subject to prior authorization in Medicare Advantage. Overuse of skin substitutes to help heal wounds has especially come under fire in recent years. Medicare spent more than $10 billion on the products in 2024 — more than double what was spent the year before, according to the New York Times. CMS noted that it may make other services subject to the prior authorization program in future years. Providers in the geographic areas can choose whether or not they want to submit an authorization request before delivering a service. But if they decide not to, they'll be subject to post-claim review and risk not getting paid for a service that was already delivered. "In general, this model will require the same information and clinical documentation that is already required to support Medicare FFS payment but earlier in the process, namely, prior to the service being furnished," the notice reads. Zoom in: The companies hired to manage the program will be paid based on how much they saved the government by stopping payments for unnecessary services. "Under the model, we will work to avoid any adverse impact on beneficiaries or providers/suppliers," CMS wrote in the notice.
