Healthcare

Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case to Defund Planned Parenthood

JM Ashby
Written by JM Ashby

Good news -- a majority of the Supreme Court voted not to hear a case that could allow states to defund Planned Parenthood by excluding the organization from their Medicaid programs.

In his dissent, arch-conservative Justice Clarence Thomas inadvertently gave the game away.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented. It takes four justices to agree to accept a case.

Thomas, suggesting the court was wary of taking a case with "Planned Parenthood" in the title, asserted the cases weren't about abortion rights but whether individuals have a right to challenge a state’s decision to eliminate a Medicaid provider.

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

Abortion is the reason Planned Parenthood was targeted in the first place.

Even though the vast majority of Planned Parenthood clinics do not perform abortions, Republicans in several states have tried to defund Planned Parenthood because they believe an organization that performs abortions -- even if Planned Parenthood does not offer abortion services in their state -- should not be funded by taxpayers.

If you agree with Clarence Thomas; if you agree that this has nothing to do with abortion, then you would have to support the court's decision not to hear the case.

Every lower court that has looked at this has ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood because their opponents could not provide a single substantiated reason to exclude the provider. Singling out a provider for exclusion would require extraordinary evidence and Republican-controlled states have no evidence to speak of.

If this isn't about abortion, as Clarence Thomas says, then lower courts have already settled the matter.

  • muselet

    Thomas, suggesting the court was wary of taking a case with “Planned Parenthood” in the title, asserted the cases weren’t about abortion rights but whether individuals have a right to challenge a state’s decision to eliminate a Medicaid provider.

    Uh-huh. And Plessy v. Ferguson wasn’t about racial segregation, but rather was about how railroads ran their businesses.

    –alopecia

  • Badgerite

    The attempts to exclude Planned Parenthood as a provider has nothing to do with abortion like voter ID laws have nothing to do with suppression of minority and opposition political voters right to vote. When the Court refuses to see reality, the law becomes a facade for oppression and disenfranchisement. Oh, and global warming and climate change are a “hoax” started by the Chinese, the Earth is only 6,000 years old and humans rode dinosaurs. Riiiiiight.

  • simpfan

    Thomas also brought up Planned Parenthood’s “illegal sale of fetal organs”, which means a sitting Supreme Court Justice is peddling bullshit conspiracy theories.

    https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25458725/clarence-thomas-planned-parenthood-smear-opinion/

    • katanahamon

      That should be grounds for removal from the court..but let’s bring that up with a sitting Dem prez,,!