In a seismic 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court just handed a major win to South Carolina, affirming the state's right to cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood clinics.
On Thursday, June 26, 2025, the Court ruled in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that individual patients cannot sue states under federal law to demand their choice of healthcare provider, a decision that could reshape access to reproductive care, Fox News reported.
This battle kicked off back in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed an executive order directing state health officials to strip Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid provider list.
McMaster argued that funneling taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood indirectly subsidizes abortions, even though federal law strictly bars Medicaid funds from covering such procedures except in rare cases.
The order didn’t just target abortion services; it blocked low-income patients from accessing routine care like cancer screenings, contraception, and STI testing at the state’s two Planned Parenthood clinics in Columbia and Charleston.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, serving hundreds of patients yearly, pushed back, claiming this wasn’t about abortion but about denying basic healthcare to those who rely on publicly funded insurance.
Lower courts initially sided with Planned Parenthood, with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Medicaid patients had a legal right to sue for their choice of qualified provider, a stance now overturned by the Supreme Court.
The case, argued on April 2, 2025, in Washington, D.C., hinged on a narrow reading of Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, questioning whether patients can directly challenge state decisions like South Carolina’s funding cut.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, stated, “Section 1983 permits private plaintiffs to sue … only in ‘atypical’ situations.” His logic? The proper remedy is for federal officials to withhold state funding, not for courts to entertain individual lawsuits.
Gorsuch further noted, “New rights for some mean new duties for others.” This zinger cuts to the heart of conservative frustration with judicial overreach—why should unelected judges force states to bankroll controversial providers when elected officials are accountable to voters?
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, calling the majority’s view a “narrow and ahistorical reading.” She warned that South Carolina’s approach risks hollowing out federal protections for Medicaid recipients’ right to choose their doctors.
Jackson added that this ruling could let states “evade liability” for trampling on patient rights. But let’s be real—South Carolina isn’t banning healthcare; it’s redirecting funds away from an organization many taxpayers find morally objectionable.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group, pointed out that Medicaid patients in South Carolina still have access to over 200 other publicly funded clinics, a fact that undercuts claims of a healthcare desert.
Yet, with South Carolina’s near-total abortion ban at six weeks and only two Planned Parenthood locations, defunding could effectively shutter these clinics, leaving low-income patients scrambling for alternatives. It’s a tough pill to swallow for those who see Planned Parenthood as a lifeline, but state sovereignty must mean something in a federal system.
