Thursday morning saw a flurry of decisions and updates from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Many were helpfully captured in a long thread by legal expert Jonathan Turley on X, who chronicled the rapid-fire announcements.
Buried in that thread was a key decision that SCOTUS made in the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.
Breaking News. Spirit-Filled Stories. Subscribe to Charisma on YouTube now!
“We have our second opinion. It is Medina v. Planned Parenthood, an important case that has not drawn as much attention,” Turley explained. “It is written by Justice Gorsuch in a 6-3 opinion.”
Turley further explained: “The Court considered whether there is a private right of action for people to challenge South Carolina’s decision to end Planned Parenthood’s participation in the state’s Medicaid program. The Court says no. Medicaid laws do not give an unambiguous right to bring a federal civil rights action.”
/**/As Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk pointed out, this creates a legal precedent that would prevent taxpayer money from going towards Planned Parenthood.
“Huge breakthrough for the cause of life. Planned Parenthood should absolutely NOT receive a dime of taxpayer money,” Kirk argued.
Because of this — and Planned Parenthood’s own admission — Turley outed the medical organization as the “big loser” of Thursday’s SCOTUS flurry.
“The big loser today is Planned Parenthood,” Turley argued. “The Court ruled in Medina that South Carolina could bar public funding and that there is a right to sue.
“The group said that this would have ‘catastrophic consequences,’ since one-third of its revenue comes from government funding.”
The 6-3 Supreme Court ruling (Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented) saw Justice Neil Gorsuch write the opinion.
“[Planned Parenthood] argued that South Carolina’s exclusion of Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program violated the any-qualified-provider provision,” Gorsuch wrote.
Join Charisma Magazine Online to follow everything the Holy Spirit is doing around the world!
(Gorsuch describes the “any-qualified-provider” provision as such: “This case involves the any-qualified-provider provision … which requires States to ensure that ‘any individual eligible for medical assistance . . . may obtain’ it ‘from any [provider] qualified to perform the service . . . who undertakes to provide’ it.”)
The majority of the Supreme Court clearly did not think that there was some sort of any-qualified-provider provision violation, much to the chagrin of the three female liberal justices.
The Alliance Defending Freedom argued this case.
This article originally appeared on The Western Journal, and is reposted with permission.
