SCOTUS Upholds South Carolina Ban on Medicaid Funds for Planned Parenthood
In a major victory for pro-life advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to review a lower court ruling that upheld South Carolina’s decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. The move effectively allows the state to continue enforcing its policy that bars taxpayer dollars from flowing to abortion providers.
The justices rejected Planned Parenthood’s appeal without comment, letting stand a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed Republican Governor Henry McMaster’s 2018 executive order to remove abortion providers from the list of eligible Medicaid providers.
Governor McMaster responded to the decision with strong praise, stating, “I have fought every day to protect the unborn, and today the Supreme Court has affirmed South Carolina’s right to do just that. Taxpayer dollars should never fund abortion, directly or indirectly.”
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the regional affiliate impacted by the ruling, had filed suit claiming the state’s move was politically motivated and deprived low-income women of access to healthcare services. However, the state argued that Medicaid recipients are not entitled to choose any provider without restriction and that the state retains authority to exclude those who fail to meet certain criteria.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case marks the second time in recent years it has allowed a state’s defunding of Planned Parenthood to stand. The justices took a similar stance with a Texas law in 2021, sending a clear signal that states have considerable discretion when it comes to regulating public healthcare funds and maintaining ethical standards in provider participation.
Pro-life leaders hailed the decision as a long-overdue recognition of state sovereignty and moral clarity. “This is a monumental win for life,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. “It affirms that states can prioritize real healthcare providers over abortion businesses, and that Planned Parenthood is not entitled to taxpayer dollars.”
Conservatives have long argued that organizations like Planned Parenthood, which perform or refer for abortions, should not receive any government funding, even for services unrelated to abortion. Although the Hyde Amendment prohibits direct federal funding of abortion procedures, critics point out that money is fungible and still supports the abortion industry by covering other operational costs.
Supporters of the South Carolina law note that the state offers alternative providers for Medicaid patients who need family planning or women’s health services. “No one is being denied care,” said Gov. McMaster. “We are simply saying that abortion providers should not be subsidized by South Carolina taxpayers.”
The case stemmed from a Medicaid patient who sued the state after being unable to receive care at a Planned Parenthood clinic. A federal district court initially sided with the patient, but the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision, affirming the state’s authority to determine which providers qualify under the state’s Medicaid program.
Judge Paul Niemeyer, writing for the majority, concluded, “A state may reasonably determine that its Medicaid program should avoid affiliations with providers whose activities are morally objectionable or politically divisive.” This principle, he wrote, is consistent with the long-standing practice of federalism and the legitimate goals of public policy.
The Biden administration had supported Planned Parenthood’s position, arguing that excluding them from Medicaid harms access to care for vulnerable populations. However, critics argue that the administration’s stance reflects a broader agenda to embed abortion services deeply into public healthcare, regardless of public or state opposition.
This latest development adds momentum to a growing national trend in which conservative-led states are asserting their right to restrict abortion and the flow of public funds to abortion-related entities. More than a dozen states have taken similar actions, bolstered by the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned abortion policy to the states.
Christian and conservative organizations across the country are praising the Court’s move as a decisive pushback against judicial overreach and cultural decay. “We are finally seeing the fruit of decades of faithful prayer and political action,” said a spokesperson for the Family Research Council. “Every life is sacred, and our laws should reflect that.”
The ruling is expected to influence other cases and legislative efforts nationwide. Pro-life attorneys believe it creates a precedent that solidifies the power of state governments to disassociate from abortion providers while maintaining health coverage for residents.
With the high court’s decision to stay out of the South Carolina case, the path is now clear for other states to take similar actions without fear of immediate judicial reversal. The shift could drastically reshape the funding landscape for Planned Parenthood and similar organizations in the coming years.
As the debate over life and taxpayer responsibility intensifies, one fact is becoming evident: the pro-life movement is gaining ground not just in the court of public opinion—but in the highest court of the land.