Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

WASHINGTON – The United States government, 18 states, members of Congress, medical practitioners in South Carolina, and pro-life advocates submitted friend-of-the-court briefs Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent the director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services in a case that could decide whether pro-life states can direct Medicaid funding—funds intended to help low-income individuals obtain necessary medical assistance—away from abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.

After South Carolina determined that Planned Parenthood was not qualified to receive taxpayer funding under its Medicaid program, a federal district court forced the state to permanently restore Planned Parenthood’s funding. ADF attorneys appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which ruled against allowing the state to terminate Planned Parenthood as a qualified Medicaid provider. After several years of litigation, the Supreme Court granted review in December. ADF attorneys submitted their opening brief with the court earlier this month.

“Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund facilities that profit off abortion,” said ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy John Bursch. “State officials should be free to determine that Planned Parenthood and other entities that peddle abortion aren’t qualified to receive taxpayer funding through Medicaid. These supporting briefs underscore that Congress didn’t create a right for Medicaid recipients to drag states into federal court to challenge those decisions—nor did Congress intend for federal courts to second-guess states’ decisions about which providers are qualified to receive Medicaid funding. We commend the many government officials, pro-life advocates, and medical professionals who are joining us in urging the Supreme Court to restore the ability of states to steward limited public resources to best serve their citizens.”

“Congress did not put States on notice that Section 1396a(a)(23) would expose them to [federal lawsuits] by burying a special, privately enforceable right deep within Section 1396a(a) and failing to use the term ‘right’ or other equally unmistakable rights-conferring language,” the United States wrote in its brief. The lower court’s decision allowing such a lawsuit “misapplied th[e Supreme] Court’s cases and contravened th[e] Court’s recent admonitions about the rarity of rights-conferring provisions.” The provision Planned Parenthood is relying on “does not unambiguously confer any rights on individual beneficiaries enforceable via Section 1983.”

“Planned Parenthood performs anywhere from one- to two-thirds of all abortions in the United States each year while offering an increasingly small number of other services,” wrote the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission in their brief. “States should not be required to undermine their interest in protecting prenatal life by funding an organization that exists to destroy it.”

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.

# # #