Supreme Court Declines Cases That Would Allow States to Block Planned Parenthood From Medicaid Funding
Justice Clarence Thomas not thrilled: “Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty.”
The Supreme Court delivered a blow to the pro-life movement when it decided not to hear cases from Louisiana and Kansas that would allow the states to block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding. From The Washington Examiner:
Planned Parenthood will continue to receive Medicaid funding in Louisiana and Kansas after the Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear cases in which the states sought to stop the organization from participating in the program.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to take up the case leaves intact lower court decisions that allowed Planned Parenthood to continue to receive Medicaid funding.
The issue at question was whether individuals on Medicaid who received medical care from places such as Planned Parenthood have the right to challenge a state’s decision to cut off funding from the organization.
Four Supreme Court justices need to agree in order for the court to accept the case. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch wanted to take up the case. This means that new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberals along with Chief Justice John Roberts.
While the cases did not specifically mention abortion, the dissent from Thomas suggested that is the reason why the court did not want to get involved. Clarence wrote:
So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named “Planned Parenthood.” That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion. It is true that these particular cases arose after several States alleged that Planned Parenthood affiliates had, among other things, engaged in “the illegal sale of fetal organs” and “fraudulent billing practices,” and thus removed Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider. Andersen, 882 F. 3d, at 1239, n. 2 (Bacharach, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). But these cases are not about abortion rights. They are about pri- vate rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to challenge the States’ decisions; it concerns only the rights of individual Medicaid patients to bring their own suits.
Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty. If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background. The Framers gave us lifetime tenure to promote “that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful perfor- mance” of the courts’ role as “bulwarks of a limited Consti- tution,” unaffected by fleeting “mischiefs.” The Federalist No. 78, pp. 469–470 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). We are not “to consult popularity,” but instead to rely on “nothing . . . but the Constitution and the laws.” Id., at 471.
We are responsible for the confusion among the lower courts, and it is our job to fix it. I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision to deny certiorari.
The Washington Post pointed out that since “[F]ive regional courts of appeal have said they do, while one has said they do not,” the Supreme Court usually picks up a case in that split. Thomas reminded the other justices that they should have done this:
“It is true that these particular cases arose after several states alleged that Planned Parenthood affiliates had, among other things, engaged in ‘the illegal sale of fetal organs’ and ‘fraudulent billing practices,’ and thus removed Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider,” Thomas wrote.
“But these cases are not about abortion rights. They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to challenge the states’ decisions.”
Honestly, I am not shocked that the Supreme Court declined to hear these cases after the circus that erupted around Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) made public statements that she wants justices to protect abortion and uphold Roe vs. Wade in every possible way.
There’s a chance President Donald Trump will nominate another Supreme Court justice during his term. So it makes sense to not want to ruffle any feathers, especially so soon after the Kavanaugh fiasco.
It goes to show that even the neutral Supreme Court isn’t immuned from politics.
SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GULF COAST, INC. by Legal Insurrection on Scribd
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
…. it goes to show that even the neutral Supreme Court isn’t immuned from politics….
horrible! how dare you go vs supreme clown roberts: there is no such thing as a political judge! (cough, cough, choke, choke)…. joke
“So it makes sense to not want to ruffle any feathers, especially so soon after the Kavanaugh fiasco.”
Right. Now the Democrats are guaranteed to treat us with respect when Trump gets to replace Ginsburg.
Not exactly a profile in courage on the part of the court, is it?
Not exactly a profile in courage on the part of the court, is it?
Intellectual integrity and lofty principles outweigh crushed baby skulls.
Pro-Choice (“planned child”, selective-child), or “two choices too late”, is a wicked solution to an albeit hard problem (spontaneous human conception). Then there is recycled-child for profit to consider. Also, GDP (i.e. taxable transactions), social progress, and immigration reform, and stability in high-density population centers.
If the men/beasts at SCOTUS are anything like the DC politicians, I would say that someone has been bought off or blackmailed. Regardless, there certainly ‘seems’ as if there is a lack of integrity with this decision – especially since abortion continues to be such a hot topic.
There’s something quite unanswered about the adoption ofJohn Robert’s children.
Which, I might add, was mentioned as a reason why he changed his vote on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Probably, someone representing Obama made a visit to Roberts and his wife and, just guessing, made a statement that went something like this — Those sure are two beautiful adopted children you and your wife are raising and it sure would be a shame if they had to be returned to Ireland and raised in an orphanage if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is not ruled constitutional.
Good grief.
I detest abortion on demand, and I have to admit that I don’t have the legal whit to know if this is something that the SCOTUS can hear. But it seems to me, Jack Burns, that the single biggest criticism of that court by anyone to the right of Stalin has been that they have allowed ‘ideals’ to take the place of the law, or as you put it, integrity and lofty principles.
I’d rather have that in a court system than activism, leave the lawmaking to elected lawmakers, even when you hate the result.
All else is a very slippery slope.
Kavanaugh was destroyed by the left because he was going force women into Borkian Back Alleys (when he’s not raping them), and this first case involving abortion that wasn’t even about abortion, he punted. Was this because he was neutered by the left, or because of his judicial POV, which would have led to this punt no matter what?
I don’t know. Either what the left did worked or they went apeshit over nothing.
I do find it most interesting that Thomas wrote what he did, and wonder if he’s just guessing about the influence of politics in the court now or he’s actually seen it first-hand.
If this case was about standing of the plaintiffs, then I don’t understand why it got this far. It’s VERY unusual for participants in a program, or wannabe participants, to have standing to challenge it. Standing provides a notoriously narrow footing to thwart challenges to government programs. I’m astonished.
Perhaps Kansas and Louisiana could take a page from Lefty states to implement a policy of nullification by declaring themselves sanctuary states (for the unborn).
But that’s just crazy talk!
As an alternative could Kansas and Louisiana take a page out the DoJ / NY AG book and simply judicially persecute the PP chapters and staff individually until they left the state? Given the number of felonies committed every day by even law abiding folks wouldn’t that provide plenty of opportunity for carefully malicious prosecution?
It is way too early in his Supreme Court career to push the panic button, but it is important to remember that Kavanaugh was a GOPe fave-rave when he was nominated. I am convinced Kavanaugh’s Establishment credentials are the only reason the Vichy Republicans fought for him instead of surrending 30 microseconds after the MSM/DNC tried to Bork him.
Nevertheless … I cannot shake a VERY bad feeling about this.
The choice was between a potentially establishment judge and the progress of civil rights violations, including warlock trials. Between what could be and a wicked precedent.
Just proves Roberts recent “judges are neutral, neither liberal or conservative” was bs.
Every news story I read or heard referred to the “3 conservative” justices dissented and Kavanaugh went with the 4 liberal justices.
Seems to be holding true.
I wonder if Kavanugh will go Souter or Warner and seek law review praise over honor. That transitory praise has won over more Justices to the anti-Constitution party than any other single thing. They all know every liberal sentence, no matter how trite, will be praised in a hundred articles. Every conservative thought dissected to the point of perversion and worse.
The Kavanaugh betrayal: Exclusive: Joseph Farah flays man who pushed Sandra Day O’Connor, latest Trump pick:
https://www.wnd.com/2018/12/the-kavanaugh-betrayal/
The gov’t shouldn’t be funding any private entity…particularly politically active ones.