After a South Carolina statute defunding Planned Parenthood was passed in 2018, Circuit Courts are divided on its validity, creating a murky legal landscape that only the Supreme Court can clarify.
This issue is rooted in a 1967 amendment to the Medicare and Medicaid Act of 1965 known as the ‘any qualified provider’ provision. A result of issues in variety of care at the time, the amendment requires plans to allow “any individual eligible for medical assistance” to obtain “assistance from any [provider] qualified to perform the service … who undertakes to provide” it.
In 2018, South Carolina’s Governor used this statute to deem Planned Parenthood unqualified to provide family planning services. His executive order stated that “the payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life.” The order terminated government funding to Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics and denied its locations any future enrollments in state Medicaid agreements.
Two weeks after this executive order, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued in federal court, and a federal district court ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood. After appealing to the 4th Circuit, the court again ruled in favor of the abortion providers.
In June 2023, the Supreme Court vacated the 4th Circuit’s decision and ordered the court to reconsider its ruling after reaching a decision in Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski. The court’s decision in this case differs from rulings in two previous Supreme Court decisions, setting contradictory precedents the Supreme Court has yet to address.
Life Legal filed an amicus brief in the current case (Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, et al), supporting a petition that asked the Supreme Court to review the 4th Circuit Court’s decision.
In the brief, we call on the Court to clarify its rulings, stating:
“When the Court fails to state clearly when it is overruling precedent, it opens the door to myriad problems. It creates confusion in the legal system. It allows lower courts to pick and choose which legal rules they will apply, sometimes favoring their own ideological preferences.”
This is especially true in cases that involve ideological matters, such as abortion and its funding. Without the Supreme Court’s leadership, lower courts are at liberty to reject pro-life initiatives based on personal preferences.