Latest news with #CivilRightsActof1871
Black America Web
10 hours ago
- Health
- Black America Web
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
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Clarence Thomas Urges 'Reexamination' of 150-Year-Old Civil Rights Statute
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a new opinion issued Thursday that the Court should "reexamine" a century-old section of federal law that widely enables civil rights litigation. Why It Matters The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision along partisan lines on Thursday in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic rules that states can block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. The South Carolina case originally stems from non-abortion services including contraception, cancer screenings and pregnancy testing. What To Know Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the conservative-leaning court. Liberal justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. But it was Justice Thomas' parting words in his dissent that also drew attention. "The Court properly applies our precedents to resolve the question presented," Thomas writes. "As it makes clear, even under current doctrine, courts should not too readily recognize a statutory right as enforceable under §1983. "But, given the remarkable gap between the original understanding of §1983 and its current role, a more fundamental reexamination of our §1983 jurisprudence is in order." U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas appears before swearing in Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General in the Oval Office at the White House on February 05, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas appears before swearing in Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General in the Oval Office at the White House on February 05, 2025 in Washington, 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, known formally as 42 U.S.C. §1983, is a federal law that allows for the suing of state and local government officials for violating constitutional rights. It's also used widely in federal civil rights litigation. Thomas' interpretation and feelings toward the 150-year-old law have been conveyed numerous times in past Court decisions. In 2020, Thomas dissented on cases the Court declined to hear challenging the doctrine of qualified immunity, writing: "I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence. Because our Section 1983 qualified immunity doctrine appears to stray from the statutory text, I would grant this petition." He also argued that while Section 1983 makes no mention of defenses or immunities, its text provides individuals the right to sue and "applies categorically to the deprivation of constitutional rights under color of state law." In 2023, as part of the majority reaffirming that private plaintiffs can enforce spending clause enactments under Section 1983, Thomas wrote a 36-page solo dissent arguing provisions and constitutionality under that law. This past February, the Court ruled in a case involving petitioners from Alabama who were unemployed workers and sued the Alabama Department of Labor under Section 1983 for allegedly unlawfully delaying the processing of state unemployment benefits claims. "As a matter of first principles, States have unfettered discretion over whether to provide a forum for §1983 claims in their courts," Thomas wrote in a dissenting opinion. "And, Alabama's exhaustion rule does not transgress the limitations that our precedents have recognized." What People Are Saying Alexis McGill Johnson, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in a statement: "Today, the Supreme Court once again sided with politicians who believe they know better than you, who want to block you from seeing your trusted health care provider and making your own health care decisions. And the consequences are not theoretical in South Carolina or other states with hostile legislatures. Patients need access to birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and more." South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster in a statement: "Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values—and today, we are finally victorious. The legality of my executive order prohibiting taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood has been affirmed by the highest court in the land." Lila Rose, president and founder of anti-abortion group Live Action, in a post on X: "Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund abortion. Let's finish the job and defund them at the state & federal levels now!" What Happens Next The Court's decision potentially paves the way for other states to mirror how Medicaid funding is distributed.
