In a major victory for pro-life advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that South Carolina has the right to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program.
The decision, issued in the case Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, allows states to uphold laws that reflect their citizens’ values on life and taxpayer funding.
The 6-3 ruling, as reported by The Daily Signal, found that the federal law governing Medicaid does not give individuals the right to sue when a state decides to exclude certain providers from the program.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Justice Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion, calling for a deeper reevaluation of how federal courts interpret civil rights claims tied to federal spending laws.
At the heart of the case was South Carolina’s 2018 decision to block Medicaid dollars from going to Planned Parenthood.
Spearheaded by Republican Governor Henry McMaster, the state cited its longstanding opposition to using public funds to support abortion providers, even indirectly.
McMaster had argued that the people of South Carolina should not be forced to subsidize an industry that ends unborn lives.
“This case is about protecting the sanctity of life and preserving South Carolina’s right to govern itself in a way that reflects the values of its people,” McMaster stated.
“Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortion providers who are in direct opposition to their beliefs.”
Planned Parenthood had claimed the decision violated Medicaid recipients’ rights to choose their healthcare providers.
However, the Court ruled that Medicaid’s legal framework doesn’t grant individuals the ability to sue the state over these funding choices.
Gorsuch made it clear that Congress did not write the law to allow such private enforcement.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Jackson argued that South Carolina’s action stripped patients of their rights under federal law.
But the majority rejected that view, reinforcing that Medicaid is a funding agreement between the federal and state governments, not a bill of rights for private lawsuits.
The ruling comes as a blow to Planned Parenthood, which operates just two clinics in the state.
Supporters of the decision argue that the state offers ample alternative providers for women’s health and family services, including over 140 federally qualified clinics and pregnancy centers.
This outcome also follows broader scrutiny of Planned Parenthood’s involvement with public institutions.
Last year in Texas, a major ethical scandal forced the retirement of Dr. Robert Bredt, medical director of the Texas Medical Board, after it was revealed he had previously worked for Planned Parenthood South Texas. Lawmakers argued his continued employment compromised the board’s impartiality, especially in light of unresolved complaints against abortion providers.
In a statement, Kelsey Reinhardt, president of CatholicVote, praised the Court’s decision. “For too long, taxpayer dollars—including those of pro-life Americans and faithful Catholics—have been used to fund an industry built on the destruction of innocent human life,” she said. “With today’s ruling, CatholicVote urges lawmakers to redirect support to organizations that uphold the dignity of both mother and child.”
The decision also reflects a broader shift in how the federal government approaches funding and healthcare policy.
As we recently reported, key provisions in President Trump’s proposed “One Big Beautiful Bill” include restricting Medicaid dollars from being funneled to abortion clinics.
That bill, now moving through Congress, could solidify similar pro-life measures on a national scale if it survives procedural hurdles from the Senate Parliamentarian.
In other words, the Supreme Court’s ruling may signal not just a win for South Carolina, but a broader turning point in how America handles taxpayer dollars, states’ rights, and the protection of the unborn.
Comments