SCOTUS Sides With South Carolina in Fight to Defund Planned Parenthood
In a major victory for state Republicans, the conservative-majority court approved their plan to strip Medicaid coverage for Planned Parenthood.

Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
The Supreme Court has dealt a major victory to South Carolina Republicans in their fight to defund Planned Parenthood, siding with the state’s move to strip the clinics of their Medicaid funding.
The Court’s Wednesday ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic upheld South Carolina’s 2018 order barring Medicaid patients from using the program to cover Planned Parenthood visits. In doing so, it also struck down a landmark effort from Medicaid patients to enforce their right to select their own medical providers.
Falling along ideological lines, the 6-3 conservative majority ruled that individual Medicaid patients cannot sue the state to enforce the program’s “any qualified provider” provision, a long-standing clause that allows patients to select the healthcare provider of their choice.
The ruling effectively killed a suit brought by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a Medicaid patient in South Carolina, who had hoped to use the provision to restore Medicaid coverage to the clinics.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic was a landmark case in conservative lawmakers' fight to prevent federal dollars from going to Planned Parenthood, drawing protesters from both sides of the issue to gather outside of the court when the case was heard in April.
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images
The ruling was a watershed moment for South Carolina’s Republican-led state government. In addition to passing one of the country’s most restrictive abortion bans in 2023, the state has also spent the last seven years moving to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving state and federal funds.
It also comes as the Trump administration moves to strip Medicaid access at the national level, vowing to decimate coverage for anyone it deems undeserving of access to the program.
Medicaid is federally funded, and the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from going to abortion care directly. However, Planned Parenthood clinics are typically covered because they provide a wide range of healthcare services beyond abortions.
Get the best of The Beast delivered right to your inbox
By clicking “SUBSCRIBE” you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster hoped to change that in 2018, when he ruled via executive order that, because the clinics provide abortions, they are ineligible for Medicaid coverage in the state.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, arguing that while the "any qualified provider" ruling "benefits" Medicaid patients, choosing your own provider is not a right.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Shortly after the executive order, Planned Parenthood’s South Atlantic branch and Medicaid patient Julie Edwards filed suit against the state. Citing the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allows citizens to sue states for violating their rights, the plaintiffs argued that stripping Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding was a violation of the “any qualified provider” provision, and thus, a violation of patients’ rights.
The suit was successful in both a district court, where a federal judge ruled the state had likely violated the “any qualified provider” provision, and in an appeals court, before being struck down at the highest level.
Authoring the majority opinion, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that although the “any qualified provider” provision means patients may select their own providers, it doesn’t meet the criteria to be considered a civil right. As such, patients aren’t entitled to sue for the provision to be enforced.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissenting opinion, warning the ruling would result in "tangible harm to real people."
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
In her dissenting opinion, Justice Jackson condemned both the ruling and South Carolina’s larger effort to cut Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood in the strongest terms. By ruling against a citizen’s attempt to sue for the enforcement of her rights, Jackson warned her conservative colleagues were setting a dangerous precedent.
“The Court’s decision today is not the first to so weaken the landmark civil rights protections that Congress enacted during the Reconstruction Era,” warned Jackson. “That means we do have a sense of what comes next: as with those past rulings, today’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people.”
Unlock a year of full access to The Looker and The Daily Beast for $35.
Monthly
$1
First month then $5.99/month
Annual
$35
First year then $59.99/year
Premium
$79
First year then $119.99/year
*Substack access provided by the next business day, using your subscription email. Choosing the Premium plan constitutes your permission to share your subscription email with Substack and your agreement to Substack’s Privacy Policy.
Looks like you already have a subscription!
You're all set!
Thanks for subscribing.
Register below to read this article for free or subscribe
to unlock unlimited access to The Looker and The Daily Beast.
Monthly
$1
First month then $5.99/month
Annual
$35
First year then $59.99/year
Premium
$79
First year then $119.99/year
*Substack access provided by the next business day, using your subscription email. Choosing the Premium plan constitutes your permission to share your subscription email with Substack and your agreement to Substack’s Privacy Policy.
Already have an account? Sign In
Looks like you already have a subscription!
You're all set!
Thanks for subscribing.
Sign in
Login dialog


