Justice Gorsuch delivered a crushing Supreme Court ruling upholding a right for South Carolinians in the Medina case that dealt a major blow on one of the Left’s biggest issues.
The Supreme Court handed down a major decision on Thursday that has massive implications.
The ruling involves a legal strategy that many thought would be a guaranteed winner.
But Justice Neil Gorsuch just demolished a huge leftwing altar with one crushing Supreme Court ruling.
Planned Parenthood’s legal strategy crumbles in spectacular fashion
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic that South Carolina has the constitutional authority to block Medicaid funding from flowing to Planned Parenthood clinics.
This decision represents a seismic shift in the ongoing battle over taxpayer-funded abortion access across America.
At issue was whether Medicaid recipients could use federal civil rights law to challenge South Carolina’s decision to block funding for Planned Parenthood clinics.
The abortion giant claimed the state’s action violated patients’ federally protected rights.
But Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, delivered a crushing blow to this strategy.
"Section 1983 permits private plaintiffs to sue for violations of federal spending-power statutes only in ‘atypical’ situations … where the provision in question ‘clear[ly]’ and ‘unambiguous[ly]’ confers an individual ‘right,’" Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.
The Court made it crystal clear that the law in question "is not such a statute," as Gorsuch explained, meaning the Medicaid Act does not create an unambiguous individual right that can be enforced through private lawsuits against states.
South Carolina Governor McMaster’s bold stand vindicated
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster had been leading the charge to prevent public health dollars from subsidizing Planned Parenthood’s operations.
McMaster took action in 2018 when he issued an executive order removing abortion providers from the state’s Medicaid network.
The governor’s office maintained that allowing Medicaid payments to flow to Planned Parenthood facilities effectively meant taxpayers were underwriting abortion services.
Lower courts had blocked McMaster’s executive order, but the Supreme Court’s ruling now vindicates his position completely.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, representing South Carolina in the case, noted that patients still retain access to over 200 alternative publicly funded medical facilities statewide.
This destroys Planned Parenthood’s argument that defunding would create a healthcare crisis for low-income women.
Liberal justices mount desperate defense of abortion industry
The three liberal justices on the Court – Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan – wrote a bitter dissent defending Planned Parenthood’s position.
Justice Jackson accused South Carolina and the Court’s majority of taking "a narrow and ahistorical reading" of Section 1983.
"That venerable provision permits any citizen to obtain redress in federal court for ‘the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States," Jackson wrote. "South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors."
But Jackson’s argument completely misses the point.
This case was never about patients choosing their own doctors – it was about whether states can be forced to subsidize the nation’s largest abortion provider with taxpayer dollars.
The majority opinion makes clear that the proper remedy for alleged Medicaid violations is for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to withhold federal funding from states, not for individual patients to sue in federal court.
This ruling opens the door for more states to defund Planned Parenthood
The Supreme Court’s decision will have immediate implications across the country.
Currently, there are just two Planned Parenthood clinics operating in South Carolina, serving hundreds of low-income patients annually.
But the ruling establishes a clear precedent that other pro-life states can follow to remove Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid networks without fear of successful legal challenges.
Gorsuch also wrote that "the decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy" and that "new rights for some mean new duties for others."
The majority opinion emphasized that "private enforcement actions, meritorious or not, can force governments to direct money away from public services and spend it instead on litigation."
He noted that "the job of resolving how best to weigh those competing costs and benefits belongs to the people’s elected representatives, not unelected judges."
This language signals that the Court respects states’ rights to make their own decisions about healthcare funding priorities.
South Carolina currently prohibits most abortions after fetal cardiac activity is detected, typically around six weeks of pregnancy.
With Planned Parenthood now blocked from receiving Medicaid funding, the state has effectively eliminated taxpayer subsidies for the abortion industry.
Planned Parenthood’s deceptive arguments exposed
Throughout this legal battle, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic tried to claim the case wasn’t about abortion at all.
The organization insisted the dispute centered on healthcare access generally, not abortion specifically, pointing to services like contraception, cancer screenings, and pregnancy testing.
But this argument rings hollow when you consider Planned Parenthood’s primary business model revolves around abortion services.
The Supreme Court saw through these deceptive talking points and ruled based on the constitutional principle that states have the authority to determine how their Medicaid dollars are spent.
The Court’s ruling makes it clear that Planned Parenthood cannot use federal civil rights laws as a backdoor method to force taxpayer funding.
This represents a major victory for pro-life advocates who have long argued that no American should be forced to subsidize abortion through their tax dollars.
The decision also strengthens the principle that healthcare decisions should be made by patients and their doctors – not dictated by abortion industry lobbying efforts in federal court.
