Justices Agree to Hear Medicaid Case Out of South Carolina
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to weigh in on whether a South Carolina woman can challenge a state decision to end Planned Parenthood’s participation in its Medicaid program.
The case, Kerr v. Planned Parenthood, stems from the state’s decision in 2018 to end Planned Parenthood South Atlantic’s participation in its Medicaid program because it provided family planning services including those related to abortion.
Planned Parenthood operates two facilities in the state, one in Charleston and the other in Columbia, and provides hundreds of Medicaid patients with services ranging from physicals and other health screenings to pregnancy testing and contraception.
Planned Parenthood and one of its patients, Julie Edwards, sued the state arguing that cutting off its funding violated a provision of the Medicaid Act that gives beneficiaries the right to choose their provider.
A federal court barred South Carolina from enforcing its decision and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld that decision, holding that Edwards could sue the state in a bid to enforce the Medicaid Act’s free choice of provider requirement.
Federal law prohibits Medicaid from paying for abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother. Planned Parenthood, however, argues in the complaint that it should be eligible for other funding related to their wider range of service offerings.
Edwards concedes she went to Planned Parenthood for birth control, but says as a diabetic, she plans to receive other care there as well.
This past summer, the state of South Carolina petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case.
It’s South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster’s view that any use of taxpayer funds to support abortion clinics is a “subsidy of abortion” and a denial of the right to life.
The respondents argue that in acting on McMaster’s beliefs, the state violated a provision of the Medicaid Act that allows any patient who is eligible for Medicaid to seek health care from any qualified provider.
Oral arguments in the case are expected in March or April, with a decision to follow by late June.
Dan can be reached at [email protected] and @DanMcCue
We're proud to make our journalism accessible to everyone, but producing high-quality journalism comes at a cost. That's why we need your help. By making a contribution today, you'll be supporting TWN and ensuring that we can keep providing our journalism for free to the public.
Donate now and help us continue to publish TWN’s distinctive journalism. Thank you for your support!
