Supreme Court Upholds South Carolina’s Defunding of Planned Parenthood in Major Ruling

In a landmark decision that’s sure to keep the political pot boiling, the Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 that South Carolina can block Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood clinics. This ruling, handed down in the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, isn’t just about dollars and cents—it’s a flashpoint in the ongoing clash over reproductive healthcare access and state power.

At the heart of the dispute is whether low-income Medicaid patients can sue under a Civil Rights Act provision to choose their preferred healthcare provider. South Carolina’s move to cut funding to Planned Parenthood was challenged as a violation of federal law, but the Court, led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, decided that such grievances should be handled by federal oversight, not individual lawsuits. Gorsuch emphasized that creating new rights for private lawsuits could divert public funds from essential services to courtroom battles—a policy puzzle better left to elected officials than judges.

On the flip side, the dissent, penned by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, slammed the majority’s stance as a gutting of federal protections. They argued that South Carolina’s actions undermine the fundamental right of Medicaid patients to pick their own doctors, accusing the state of dodging accountability.

This isn’t just a legal technicality. South Carolina, under Governor Henry McMaster, has been relentless in its push to divert public health funds away from Planned Parenthood, even though federal law already bars Medicaid money from funding abortions except in rare cases. With only two clinics in the state serving hundreds of low-income patients for services like contraception and cancer screenings, this decision could effectively choke off access to vital care for many. The state’s near-total abortion ban at six weeks only adds fuel to the fire.

While Planned Parenthood insists this fight is about broader healthcare access, not abortion, the ruling lands as a significant victory for pro-life advocates. Yet, it raises a bigger question: when does a state’s control over its purse strings cross the line into denying basic care? For now, the Court has tipped the scales toward state authority, but the debate is far from over.