Today, the ACLJ filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court in Baker v. Edwards (formerly Baker v. Planned Parenthood). This is an important case that could have a dramatic impact on the ability of the states to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood – the nation’s largest abortion provider.
In a case raising identical issues in 2018, the Court declined to hear the case over the dissent of three Justices. Under the Court’s rules, four Justices must vote to hear a case. It is likely those three dissenting Justices will again vote to hear the Baker case. We are hopeful that this time, a fourth Justice will see the importance of granting review and cast the necessary vote.
As we explained earlier, this case arose after the South Carolina’s governor, Henry McMaster, issued an executive order directing the South Carolina Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) to deem abortion clinics unqualified to receive Medicaid funding. Planned Parenthood and an individual plaintiff immediately sued in federal court, challenging the State’s decision. The district court enjoined the executive order and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. South Carolina sought review in the Supreme Court.
Our brief argues the Court should hear the case because the Fourth Circuit wrongly read the Medicaid Act to grant private citizens the right to sue the states over their disqualification of Medicare providers. Congress did not authorize any such right. As we explained:
The Fourth Circuit’s reading into § 1396a(a)(23) of a § 1983 right of action constitutes a double assault on the states’ power, as independent sovereigns, to adopt valid policies reflecting the values of their citizens. First, the court exposed the states within its jurisdiction to the specter of legal assault by potentially countless Medicaid recipients. Second, the court effectively granted nullification power to providers and aid recipients over state fiscal policy in a sensitive area of state concern – taxpayer subsidization of Planned Parenthood.
We argued further that there is nothing in the statute indicating that Congress intended to limit South Carolina’s sovereign authority to ensure that taxpayer funds do not subsidize Planned Parenthood.
This is a very important case that could strike a devastating blow against the abortion purveyor. If the Court grants review, we will, with your continued support, continue the fight against taxpayer subsidization of Planned Parenthood.
We're aggressively battling at the Supreme Court to defund and defeat the abortion industry. Your gift today – of any amount – could save a life.
Caution: The following article contains graphic information that sensitive readers may find disturbing. Planned Parenthood was exposed in court, the United States Senate, and House of Representatives for its disgusting practices. And yet, in a bizarre twist of justice, a California jury awarded the...
Caution: The following article contains graphic images. On Tuesday night, in Portland, Oregon, Pro-Life leader Tayler Hansen was attacked by ANTIFA. Hansen was bloodied and bruised. He is lucky to be alive. Hansen has been traveling the country painting Baby Lives Matter murals in cities where...
Recently, the U.N. Working Group on discrimination against women and girls stated that it will be presenting “a thematic report on women’s and girls’ sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in situations of crisis to the 47th session of the U.N. Human Rights Council in June 2021.” To aid...
The Supreme Court once again has an abortion case on its docket. At issue are the FDA’s safety regulations for the RU-486 abortion pill, also known as Mifeprex. A federal district court in Maryland enjoined the regulations, and the federal government is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stay –