Supreme Court Should Uphold State’s Rights to No Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Businesses

Next month, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case challenging South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster’s 2018 executive order disqualifying abortion businesses from receiving taxpayer dollars.

As a homegrown South Carolinian, there is nothing more pervasive to my state’s values, nor diametrically opposed to our health care needs, than forcing taxpayers to finance big abortion businesses, and it should remain our legislators’ duty to direct those decisions according to the will of the citizens.

The question before the high court is narrow: Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Federal law allows Medicaid beneficiaries to receive treatment from “any qualified provider.” The federal government sets broad guidelines, but state level administration oversees that clinics follow proper ethical guidelines to maintain “qualified” status.

Of course, Planned Parenthood, the national arm of the case’s respondent, has a storied history of medical malpractice. It currently faces a growing number of lawsuits, of whom the victims of malpractice passionately justify “because even disadvantaged people deserve good care.”

Planned Parenthood’s disregard for standards of care merely scratches the surface of its disqualifying actions.

From the view of the average South Carolinian, intentionally taking the life of a human being should be an unquestioned, immediate revocation of all medical certifications. That is exactly what Planned Parenthood’s business is all about, and it should be the right of the state to reflect the values of its citizens. At the very least, that means not forcing taxpayers to subsize abortion procedures by way of Medicaid funds.

Planned Parenthood’s interests are wholly committed to abortion—a service not covered by Medicaid. According to Planned Parenthood’s 2021-2022 Annual Report, legitimate services such as cancer screenings and preventative services have dropped 71%, breast exams have dropped 74%, and pap tests have dropped 70% since 2010.

Abortions, however, have remained steady, and the business even picked up a new return-customer-guarantee product: what it markets as “gender-affirming care.” Yet another issue where it stands against the majority of Americans, and certainly the vast majority of South Carolinians. This manipulative war waged against the healthy bodies of our children is another shameful profit-driven enterprise that should disqualify it (though this issue is beyond the scope of this case).

Whether the beneficiary has a private right of action or not, the question implicit in this case is whether states should be able to determine which health care providers are entitled to receive Medicaid funds. And the answer is a simple, “yes.”

Medicaid is about health care, and abortion is not health care. Every successful abortion procedure ends a life. By Planned Parenthood choosing to turn its back on health care and rather focus on procedures that harm patients, it has chosen to forfeit the help available through the state for providers that align with the state’s values and interests.

It is more than reasonable for my state to seek to ensure taxpayer funds are solely directed toward clinics committed to the well-being of South Carolinians.

The governor’s brief to the court sums it up concisely, “Whether in the context of abortion regulation or any other contentious issue, this case raises broader structural concerns about the relationship between the States and the federal government …” As a South Carolinian, I affirm that directing Medicaid funds away from abortion businesses is not just within my state’s jurisdiction, but in lock step with our interests to support and promote life-affirming health care for all.

The Supreme Court should uphold South Carolina’s right to disqualify providers based on the health and safety standards according to constituents’ needs. This in no way interferes with federal interests and in fact, affirms the same principles the country as a whole has sought to implement through federal policies.

There should be no constitutional tension in this area. 

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.