Life Legal has filed an amicus curiae brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in Medina v. Planned Parenthood—a case that could be a big step toward ending Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.
Background of the Case
In 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster moved to exclude Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid program, a decision made in response to widespread concerns about the organization—including revelations from the Center for Medical Progress regarding the sale of fetal body parts. McMaster had campaigned explicitly on this issue, and his election signaled strong public support for defunding.
Planned Parenthood, along with an individual patient, immediately sued to block the defunding effort, claiming that Medicaid patients have a right to choose their healthcare provider—including Planned Parenthood. Rather than straightforwardly arguing for its own benefit, Planned Parenthood strategically relied on individual plaintiffs to assert a supposed right to taxpayer-funded services from the doctor of their choice.
The Legal Question at Stake
At the heart of this case is whether an individual patient can enforce a right to taxpayer funding for a specific provider—particularly one that the public, through its elected officials, has deliberately chosen not to support. Lower courts have relied on an outdated line of cases known as the Blessing/Wilder precedent, which originally addressed an individual’s ability to sue for state child support enforcement. Over time, courts have applied this precedent to Medicaid cases, despite Supreme Court rulings that have narrowed its applicability.
Our brief urges the Supreme Court to clarify that the Blessing/Wilder precedent has been overruled and that states have the right to determine which providers receive taxpayer dollars. If the Court adopts our argument, Planned Parenthood will lose its ability to use individual plaintiffs as a legal shield, making it significantly harder to force states to fund its operations.
Why This Case Matters
This case exemplifies the work Life Legal does every day:
- Ensuring legal clarity – We urge a definitive ruling from the Court, rather than allowing lower courts to rely haphazardly on vague, outdated precedents.
- Defending the rights of voters – South Carolina taxpayers do not want to fund Planned Parenthood. The question is simple: Can a handful of patients, recruited by Planned Parenthood, override the will of the people? We say no.
- Protecting unborn lives – If states are free to defund Planned Parenthood, one of the abortion industry’s largest revenue streams will be cut off. That means fewer abortion referrals, fewer abortion sales, and ultimately, more babies saved.
This case also aligns with our broader legal work: protecting First Amendment rights, keeping pro-life activists in operation, and challenging unjust pro-abortion mandates in court.
How You Can Help
Please pray for a favorable ruling when the Supreme Court decides Medina v. Planned Parenthood this summer.
Pray for our ongoing legal efforts—Life Legal regularly files court briefs in defense of life.
Support our work—Every case we take on requires time and resources. If you are able, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to Life Legal today.