A recent effort by conservative politicians to target Planned Parenthood could potentially deprive the organization of the ability to provide healthcare to low-income Americans. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on April 2 regarding South Carolina’s attempt to block Medicaid funding for healthcare services provided by Planned Parenthood.
The case, , arose from a 2018 order issued by South Carolina’s Republican Governor Henry McMaster, which stated that any clinic offering abortion services would be excluded from the state’s Medicaid program. Medicaid is a joint state and federal program that offers health insurance to low-income individuals, and in most states, including South Carolina, it generally doesn’t cover abortions, except in limited circumstances. In South Carolina, abortions are prohibited after approximately six weeks of pregnancy.
Following McMaster’s order, Planned Parenthood and one of its patients filed a lawsuit, claiming the order violates a provision of the Medicaid Act that allows beneficiaries to choose any qualified healthcare provider. Lower courts prevented the governor’s order from taking effect, and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in December to review the case.
(PPSAT)—serving South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia—operates in South Carolina: one in Columbia and another in Charleston. Planned Parenthood clinics in the state offer abortion services before the sixth week of pregnancy, in accordance with state law, and also provide other healthcare services, like birth control, STI testing and treatment, and cancer screenings.
“It’s evident that the case is driven by the anti-abortion stance of the South Carolina government,” states Dr. Katherine Farris, chief medical officer of PPSAT. “However, the central issue of the case isn’t abortion—it’s about ensuring people’s access to preventative healthcare.”
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative Christian legal advocacy group that opposes abortion, is representing South Carolina in the case. John Bursch, vice president of appellate advocacy for ADF and the state’s lead counsel, says the state doesn’t want to use taxpayer money to support the abortion industry. He argues that there are numerous other publicly funded healthcare clinics in South Carolina that provide more comprehensive healthcare and receive Medicaid funding. He also claims that South Carolina isn’t restricting anyone’s ability to choose their medical provider.
As of June 2024, over a million people in South Carolina were enrolled in Medicaid, according to . Many Medicaid recipients are —in South Carolina, nearly three in five Medicaid enrollees identify as non-white, according to the . Many patients who visit Planned Parenthood clinics .
Farris suggests that if the state restricts Medicaid coverage for Planned Parenthood services, many patients might not receive care or experience delays in receiving it. This could have significant health consequences, such as unintended pregnancies or worsening health outcomes, if screenings and treatment for STIs or cancer are postponed.
“The vast majority of healthcare providers either refuse to accept Medicaid patients or severely limit the number of new Medicaid patients they will accept,” Farris explains. “So, in practice, these patients can’t get in and don’t have a provider. At Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, we don’t limit the number of Medicaid patients we see, which is quite unusual in the medical field.”
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case at a time when three other states—, , and —have already excluded Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs.
Many reproductive rights organizations—including the Center for Reproductive Rights, which for the case—have urged the court to side with PPSAT.
“Choosing a doctor is a personal decision, and it’s even more crucial when seeking sexual and reproductive healthcare,” says Autumn Katz, interim director of U.S. litigation for the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Bursch argues that the Medicaid Act allows a state to disqualify a provider if they don’t comply with state law. He notes that PPSAT still provides abortions before six weeks of pregnancy (which is legal in South Carolina) and advocates against South Carolina’s abortion restrictions. In response to Bursch’s comments during a press briefing, Catherine Peyton Humphreville, senior staff attorney for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, representing PPSAT in the case, stated that the organization complies with all South Carolina laws, including the state’s strict abortion ban.
“PPSAT does provide the very limited number of abortions it’s able to provide under the state’s abortion ban,” Humphreville says. “The idea that [South Carolina] can punish PPSAT for advocating—simply advocating for abortion, not just providing abortion, but advocating for abortion—has serious First Amendment issues.”
On March 31, Planned Parenthood that nine of its affiliates received notice from the Trump Administration that starting April 1, the government would freeze funding under a federal program known as Title X, which makes millions of dollars available to clinics that provide family planning services for people who are low income. Planned Parenthood than any other provider.
Reproductive rights advocates say that the impact of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic could be far-reaching. Katz suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court sides with South Carolina, other states with abortion restrictions or bans might follow suit, and it could even pave the way for states to disqualify other providers from the Medicaid program for arbitrary reasons. “They could attempt to exclude providers who offer other forms of healthcare that a state politician disagrees with or finds offensive,” Katz says. “I believe that’s what’s really at stake.”
“This isn’t the first instance of a state trying to exclude Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program,” she says, “but other states will undoubtedly attempt to do the same.”
