In a ruling that affirms both the sanctity of human life and the rightful authority of states to protect it, the United States Supreme Court has upheld South Carolina’s decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. The 6–3 decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic represents a significant moment in the post-Roe legal landscape, reinforcing that taxpayer dollars need not be entangled—directly or indirectly—with organizations that profit from the destruction of unborn life.
At the heart of the case was the question of whether individual Medicaid recipients could sue the state under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to demand access to a particular provider—namely, Planned Parenthood. South Carolina had removed Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid provider list in 2018, with Governor Henry McMaster citing the organization’s involvement in abortion as incompatible with the moral use of public funds. “There is no right to taxpayer funding of abortion providers,” McMaster has repeatedly stated, and the Court’s decision affirms that principle.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, made clear that the federal law in question—the Medicaid Act’s “free choice of provider” clause—does not create an enforceable private right under Section 1983. “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,’” he wrote, according to Fox News. “That is not such a statute.”
Gorsuch went further, offering a crucial reminder about the role of unelected judges in matters of public morality and policy. “New rights for some mean new duties for others,” he noted. “The job of resolving how best to weigh those competing costs and benefits belongs to the people’s elected representatives, not unelected judges charged with applying the law as they find it.”
For devout Catholics, the implications are both legal and moral. This case is not merely about regulatory technicalities; it is about the right of states to distance themselves from the culture of death and to redirect their public resources in support of life-affirming care. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion” (CCC 2271). To compel states to partner with abortion providers—even indirectly—would be to force complicity in grave moral evil.
While Planned Parenthood has insisted that this case is not about abortion but “access to general healthcare,” it is essential to recognize that the organization’s central identity remains inseparable from its abortion business. Though federal law prohibits Medicaid funds from being used for abortions except in rare circumstances, money is fungible. Any funds that support the infrastructure of Planned Parenthood inevitably support the continued killing of the unborn.
In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the ruling weakens the ability of citizens to challenge state actions in federal court, calling it “a narrow and ahistorical reading” of Section 1983. She accused the majority of allowing states “to hollow out” the rights of Medicaid recipients. But this reading fails to acknowledge the deeper moral clarity affirmed by the decision: the state has not denied anyone access to healthcare—it has simply said it will not subsidize an organization that destroys innocent human life.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, representing South Carolina, noted that Medicaid recipients have access to more than 200 other publicly funded healthcare clinics in the state. Planned Parenthood is not the only provider of gynecological exams, cancer screenings, or contraception. What makes it controversial is its status as the nation’s largest abortion provider—a status that renders it unfit for public partnership in a state that seeks to protect life.
As the Church continues to bear witness to the Gospel of Life, this ruling provides hope and encouragement. It reminds Catholics that faithful public policy can—and must—reflect the moral law. Governments are not morally neutral. They either uphold the dignity of the human person or undermine it.
The Supreme Court has now affirmed that states are not required to aid those who traffic in death. For those of us committed to a culture of life, this ruling is not only legally sound—it is morally just. May it inspire further courage among lawmakers and citizens alike to protect the unborn and to uphold the dignity of all human life, from conception to natural death.
