Latest news with #MedicaidAct
USA Today
30-06-2025
- Health
- USA Today
Supreme Court orders new review of transgender cases by lower courts
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 30 said lower courts must reconsider their decisions that government-sponsored insurance plans must pay for gender-affirming care, taking into account the justice's recent landmark ruling upholding Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. The court also directed a reconsideration of a decision allowing transgender people to challenge Oklahoma's refusal to let them change their gender designation on their birth certificate. All of the cases at least partly turn on the Constitution's guarantee that governments should treat people equally, the same legal issue the court weighed when finding Tennessee's ban did not violate that protection. More: Supreme Court upholds state ban on transgender minors using puberty blockers, hormone therapy But the court's 6-3 decision left unanswered how its ruling might apply to bans on transgender participation in school sports, bans on transgender care for adults, and other issues. The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled North Carolina's and West Virginia's refusal to cover certain health care for transgender people is discriminatory. West Virginia's Medicaid program had prohibited 'transsexual surgery' because of 'concerns like cost and effectiveness.' North Carolina's health plan for state employees excluded treatments 'leading to or in connection with sex changes or modifications.' North Carolina argued that, as part of the difficult choices it has to make to keep health care coverage affordable, it can exclude certain treatments as long as there's no proof of 'invidious discrimination.' Dozens of state Medicaid and employee health care plans across the country have similar exclusions, according to North Carolina. The appeals court said both states' coverage exclusions discriminate on the basis of sex and gender identity and do not advance an important government interest. The divided panel also said West Virginia's prohibition violated the Medicaid Act and the Affordable Care Act. In a related case, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Idaho's head of Medicaid can be sued for not approving sex-reassignment surgery. That decision must now be reconsidered. 'Cruelty over care': Transgender care advocates blast Supreme Court In the Oklahoma case, the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year said three transgender people could challenge Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt's ban on allowing transgender people to get new birth certificates to match their gender identity. "I believe that people are created by God to be male or female. Period," Stitt, the governor, said in 2021. A federal district judge dismissed the challenge to Stitt's executive order. But the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision last year. A three-judge panel said the policy likely discriminates against transgender people and has no legitimate justification. The court rejected the state's argument that changing birth certificates diminishes the accuracy of birth statistics. Oklahoma retains the original birth certificates so 'the same statistics are available, regardless of whether the Policy exists," the court wrote. The original birth certificates can also be used to enforce Oklahoma's ban on transgender athletes competing in women's sports, the court added.
Black America Web
27-06-2025
- 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
France 24
26-06-2025
- Health
- France 24
Top US court allows states to defund largest abortion provider
Planned Parenthood is already barred from receiving federal money for abortion care but the 6-3 ruling would also allow states to cut off reimbursements for other medical services it provides to low-income Americans under the Medicaid program. The three liberal justices on the top court dissented. The case stems from an executive order issued by South Carolina's Republican governor Henry McMaster in 2018 cutting off Medicaid funding to the two Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. The Medicaid reimbursements were not abortion-related, but McMaster said providing any funding to Planned Parenthood amounts to a taxpayer "subsidy of abortion," which is banned in South Carolina for women who are more than six weeks pregnant. Planned Parenthood, which provides a wide range of reproductive health services, and a South Carolina woman suffering from diabetes, filed suit against the state arguing that Medicaid patients have the right to receive care from any qualified provider. An appeals court ruled that Planned Parenthood cannot be excluded from the state's Medicaid program and South Carolina appealed to the Supreme Court, where conservatives wield a 6-3 majority. The court ruled that a Medicaid patient cannot sue the state to receive medical care from a provider of their choosing. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by the two other liberal justices, disagreed. "Congress enacted the Medicaid Act's free-choice-of-provider provision to ensure that Medicaid recipients have the right to choose their own doctors," Jackson said. "Today's decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people." The Supreme Court ruling was welcomed by the anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, which called it a "major win for babies and their mothers." It clears the way for South Carolina and other states "to stop funding big abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood in their Medicaid programs," it said on X. Paige Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, called the ruling a "grave injustice" and said it "promises to send South Carolina deeper into a health care crisis." The Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 case that established federal protections for abortion access, in June 2022. © 2025 AFP
26-06-2025
- Health
Supreme Court decision bolsters efforts to defund Planned Parenthood
The Supreme Court on Thursday said individual Medicaid recipients do not have a right to sue over their state's decision to cut off Planned Parenthood from the government-funded health insurance program for low-income residents. The 6-3 decision, which broke along ideological lines, was a significant victory for conservative efforts to defund the private health clinic network, clearing the way for other states to follow suit. "The Supreme Court rightly restored the ability of states like South Carolina to steward limited public resources to best serve their citizens," said John Bursch, the attorney who defended South Carolina before the high court. Planned Parenthood draws more than a third of its revenue from government grants, contracts and Medicaid reimbursements for non-abortion care, like cancer screenings and contraception treatments. "Today's decision is a grave injustice that strikes at the very bedrock of American freedom and promises to send South Carolina deeper into a health care crisis," Planned Parenthood South Atlantic president Paige Johnson said in a statement. The organization, which said it has served more than 50,000 state Medicaid beneficiaries so far this year, vowed to continue operations at its two South Carolina clinics. At issue in the case was whether the Medicaid Act -- which guarantees a "free choice of provider" that is willing and qualified --- allows beneficiaries to sue their state if the government infringes on the ability see a preferred provider. In 2018, South Carolina's Republican Gov. Henry McMaster issued executive orders disqualifying Planned Parenthood from participation in the state's Medicaid program, which is a jointly funded federal-state initiative. Julie Edwards, a Medicaid beneficiary and type-1 diabetic who sought medical care at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Columbia, South Carolina, sued the state alleging a violation of the law. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court's majority, said that Congress never intended to allow individual recipients to sue states to enforce terms of the Medicaid Act and that it retains the sole responsibility through power of the purse. "It generally belongs to the federal government to supervise compliance with its own spending programs," Gorsuch wrote. In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, said that the decision thwarted the will of lawmakers and undermined a key civil rights law. "Today's decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people," she wrote. "At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians -- and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country -- of a deeply personal freedom: the ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable." South Carolina's two Planned Parenthood clinics have served mostly low-income, minority women for more than 40 years. "By denying Medicaid enrollees the ability to enforce their right to choose among qualified providers, the Court has effectively closed the courthouse doors to those seeking to protect their access to care," said Jane Perkins, legal director at the National Health Law Program, a nonprofit advoacy group. "This decision disproportionately impacts low-income individuals who rely on Medicaid for essential health services." Anti-abortion groups, which have long targeted Planned Parenthood as the nation's largest provider of abortion services, hailed the Supreme Court decision.
Los Angeles Times
26-06-2025
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court says states may bar women on Medicaid from using Planned Parenthood clinics
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states may exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from providing medical screenings and other health care for women on Medicaid. The court's conservative majority reversed the longstanding rule that said Medicaid patients may obtain medical care from any qualified provider. By a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Medicaid Act does not give patients an 'individual right' to the provider of their choice. The dispute has turned on abortion. Medicaid is funded by the federal government and the states. For decades, conservative states have argued their funds should not be used in Planned Parenthood clinics because some of those clinics perform abortions. But until now, the federal government and the courts had said that Medicaid patients have go to any qualified provider for health care. In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the decision 'will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians — and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country — of a deeply personal freedom: the ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.' Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed. Planned Parenthood clinics provide cancer screenings, birth control medical screenings, pregnancy testing, contraception and other healthcare services. Congress pays most of the state's costs for Medicaid, and it says 'any individual eligible for medical assistance' may receive care from any provider who is 'qualified to perform the service.' Lupe Rodríguez, executive director of National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, called the decision 'an attack on our healthcare and our freedom to make our own decisions about our bodies and lives. By allowing states to block Medicaid patients from getting care at Planned Parenthood health centers, the Court has chosen politics over people and cruelty over compassion.' Three years ago, the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade and ruled states may prohibit nearly all abortions. Nonetheless, South Carolina continued its legal fight to prevent Medicaid patients from receiving care at Planned Parenthood's clinics in Charleston and Columbia. Former Gov. Henry McMaster, who issued the ban on Planned Parenthood in 2018, said he did so to protect 'his state's sovereign interests.' Critics of the move said the state has a severe shortage of doctors and medical personnel who treat low-income patients on Medicaid.
