Supreme Court Rules South Carolina Can Block Medicaid Funding to Planned Parenthood
This isn’t hard. Public money cannot pay for abortions and we all know Planned Parenthood thrives on abortion.
A huge win for the pro-life movement!
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that South Carolina can block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding.
Justices Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The abortion mill and patient Julie Edwards brought the lawsuit under Section § 1983 of the Medicaid Act “to vindicate rights secured by the federal Medicaid statutes”:
Section 1983 allows private parties to sue state actors who violate their “rights” under the federal “Constitution and laws.” But federal statutes do not automatically confer §1983-enforceable “rights.” This is especially true of spending-power statutes like Medicaid, where “the typical remedy” for violations is federal funding termination, not private suits. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S. 273, 280.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:
At their best, individual suits under §1983 can vindicate plaintiffs’ rights while pushing States to fulfill their obligations. But private enforcement does not always benefit the public, not least because it requires States to divert money and attention away from social services and toward litigation. And balancing those costs and benefits poses a question of public policy that, under our system of government, only Congress may answer. See Sandoval, 532 U. S., at 286; Gonzaga, 536 U.S., at 285–286.
Section 1983 permits private plaintiffs to sue for violations of federal spending-power statutes only in “atypical” situations, Talevski, 599 U. S., at 183, where the provision in question “clear[ly]” and “unambiguous[ly]” confers an individual “right,” Gonzaga, 536 U.S., at 290. Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) is not such a statute. Because the Fourth Circuit concluded otherwise, its judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Planned Parenthood argued that the case centers around general healthcare, not abortion.
Yeah, but what does Planned Parenthood thrive on? Abortion.
In July 2018, South Carolina said Planned Parenthood cannot receive funds from the state’s Medicaid program due to a state law not allowing public funds for abortions.
South Carolina also does not allow abortions after six weeks.
Federal law also does not allow Medicaid money to pay for abortions with a few exceptions.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I dont believe this
and again those “few exceptions” are what makes $$$$$$ pour into unplanning parenthood
all the money is co-mingled
so pp can say ok we dont use it for abortions and as we still send them money they can still use the money as they see fit as no one can stop them
UNLESSSSS, they arent given the money in the first place
Fungible is the word your looking for
and I thought that was just for mushrooms
Money given by the state to PP for uses other than abortion frees up funds from other sources to be used for abortions. So there’s no real distinction here. The state is either paying for abortions directly, by explicitly giving abortion funding to PP, or it’s funding abortions indirectly, by freeing funding from other sources for spending specifically on abortion. This is inescapable.
yeah
so thats why no money at all
they have no moral right to others monies
and the gop can k off for lying /tricking their voters into the nonsensical hyde amendment
we will only fill up the shallow end of the pool
Again with these 3. Every single time! Why even bother holding a vote?
is this ( abortion..funding…men not allowed to have a decision in birth or no birth)
really upholding womens rights
or just another way of tearing down the patriarchy they so demonize
Planned Parenthood uses creative accounting in determining how much of its activities relate to abortion and how much to “health care”.
For example, every pamphlet or condom they give out, every referral for the physical medical care they do not provide, every “counseling” session is regarded and counted as a separate “health care” delivery.
This is how they can claim abortion is just a minor percentage of their activities when in fact it is basically the only “service” they provide.
I don’t know that this is true, but it would make perfect sense. It’s the type of sleight-of-hand such an organization would use to deceive the public and the state.
“Justices Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.”
I’m going to need Sarah Hoyt’s shocked face.
“Justices Ketanji Brown-Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.”
Of course they did!
PP could just stop providing abortions if they wanted to continue providing all their other services. Abortions are a small part of their mission, right?
States can opt out of all these federal programs.
A more apt name for this organization would be Ad Hoc Filicide.