We Have the Long-Awaited News About Who Will Control the Minnesota State House
60 Minutes Reporter Who Told Trump Hunter's Laptop Can't Be Verified Afraid Her...
Wait, Is Joe Biden Even Awake to Sign the New Spending Bill?
Van Jones Has Been on a One-Man War Against the Dems
NYC Mayor Eric Adams Explains Why He Confronted Suspected UnitedHealthcare Shooter to His...
The Absurd—and Cruel—Myth of a ‘Government Shutdown’
When in Charge, Be in Charge
If You Try to Please Everybody, You’ll End Up Pleasing Nobody
University of Arizona ‘Art’ Exhibit Demands Destruction of Israel
Biden-Harris Steered Us Toward Economic Doom; Trump Will Fix It
Massive 17,000 Page Report on How the Biden Admin Weaponized the Federal Government...
Trump Hits Biden With Amicus Brief Over the 'Fire Sale' of Border Wall
JK Rowling Marked the Anniversary of When She First Spoke Out Against Transgender...
Argentina’s Milei Seems to Have Cracked the Code on How to Cut Government...
The Founding Fathers Were Geniuses
Tipsheet

Justice Thomas Accuses Colleagues of Avoiding Abortion Issues as SCOTUS Passes on Planned Parenthood Defunding Appeal

The Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from Louisiana and Kansas in their attempts to defund Planned Parenthood through their Medicaid programs.

The court was just shy of the fourth justice needed to take up the case as three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberal justices in the decision not to take up the case.

Advertisement

In a scathing dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas implied that the high court’s decision had to do with a desire to avoid the politically polarizing issue of abortion.

"What explains the court’s refusal to do its job here?" he wrote. "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."

Justice Thomas pointed out that while the dispute did arise over some of the organization’s practices related to abortion, the central issue had 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,’” he wrote. “But these cases are not about abortion rights. They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act.”

"Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty," he concluded. "If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background."

Advertisement

Louisiana and Kansas attempted to cut off Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood affiliates following the release of undercover videos in 2015 alleging that the group engaged in illegal trafficking in fetal tissue.

Planned Parenthood sued in federal court over the defunding attempt, claiming that the states were violating a Medicaid requirement that patients be free to seek healthcare from any qualified provider.

The lawsuit centered on the Medicaid Act’s “qualified provider” provision and whether it allows a challenge to a state’s determination that a provider is “not qualified.”

Thomas called the issue “important and recurring.”  He wrote that, due to the court's inaction, "patients in different States—even patients with the same providers—have different rights to challenge their State’s provider decisions." He added that because the Supreme Court has denied review in this case, states continue to face potential federal lawsuits over changing medical service providers for a Medicaid recipient. 

Advertisement

While Medicaid funding is not used for abortion, money is fungible and lawyers for the states also argued that they should not have to indirectly subsidize organizations that perform abortions.

Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit prevailed in lower courts and the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the states’ petition means that those lower court rulings stand.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement