Kansas can't block funds to Medicaid after Supreme Court won't hear appeal

Kansas can't block funds to Medicaid after Supreme Court won't hear appeal

"Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty", he added. Kavanaugh, however, sided with Justices John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. In the aftermath of the explosive and divisive Kavanaugh confirmation hearings this fall, and with two new justices on the court in less than a year, Roberts and most of the other justices have gone out of their way to paint the court as a nonpartisan, apolitical institution. Kavanaugh took his seat in the second week of October, and his supporters have assumed he would vote in favor of restricting abortion rights when given the opportunity.

The contentious fight put the court in an uncomfortable political spotlight.

The Medicaid reimbursement issue may indeed re-emerge in another context, and the Court should take up the issue.

The United States Supreme Court will not hear Kansas and Louisiana's appeals defending their efforts to cut off Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood, effectively forcing taxpayer funding of abortion to continue and signaling similar pro-life efforts in other states will fail. That is the kind of split that normally prompts the Supreme Court to act, and Thomas said that is what the court should have done. "I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood, '" wrote Justice Clarence Thomas.

It left in place two lower court opinions that said that states violate federal law when they terminate Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood affiliates who offer preventive care for low income women.

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.

"AUL is disappointed that the Court declined to hear argument in these cases, and we join the dissent in calling on the Court to 'do its duty, '" said AUL's President and CEO Catherine Glenn Foster. In it, Thomas notes that the question is whether Medicaid recipients have a right to challenge a finding by the state as to who qualifies as a provider. The Framers gave us lifetime tenure to promote "that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance" of the courts' role as "bulwarks of a limited Constitution", unaffected by fleeting "mischiefs".

Planned Parenthood contended in this case the states were singling them out for disfavored treatment because they separately provide constitutionally protected abortion services.

Thomas mentioned the videos in his dissent.

Thomas argued that the case did not directly involve abortion. "Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood's ability to challenge the states' decisions".

"There is little or no demonstrable capability for definitive diagnosis or a range of treatments for any disease or condition at Planned Parenthood centers", the CLI study's authors wrote.

We support their right to redirect taxpayer funds away from entities that destroy innocent lives and instead fund comprehensive community health care alternatives that outnumber Planned Parenthood facilities at least 20 to one nationwide.

At issue was whether people insured by Medicaid can access Planned Parenthood's services, including screenings, ultrasounds, and counseling.

Related Articles