June 26, 2025
See the statements below from the O’Neill Institute’s health law experts on the Supreme Court’s decision in Medina, Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic et. al.
Professor Michele Bratcher Goodwin, Linda D. & Timothy J. O’Neill Professor of Constitutional Law and Global Health Policy; Co-Faculty Director, O’Neill Institute
“At its core, this is a case about punishing Title X providers based not on the quality of services provided or allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse, or harm to patients. Nor is the case about failure to meet the conditions and terms of the Medicaid program. Rather, this case fits within a pattern of antiabortion lawmakers and governors seeking to weaponize their authority and overreach into constitutionally and federally protected spaces to deny not only abortion rights, but any other type of reproductive health care that they themselves personally disagree with. In this case, the governor’s executive order to terminate Planned Parenthood and providers that perform abortions from the Medicaid program violated the free choice that patients are lawfully entitled to make under specific, decades-old Medicaid provisions.
Today, the Supreme Court continues its dismantling of civil rights and civil liberties by denying patient choice, a provision specifically written into the Medicaid Act, which was part of the historic legacy of the Johnson administration in rooting out discrimination in health care and expanding patient autonomy and choice. The Court showed its selective adherence to history and originalism today. The Court’s opportunistic originalism cannot be denied. Worryingly, it has harmed millions of Americans.”
Professor Lawrence O. Gostin, Founding O’Neill Chair in Global Health Law; Co-Faculty Director, O’Neill Institute
“In today’s decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court closed the courtroom doors to Medicaid beneficiaries seeking to enforce their right to choose their own health care provider. This case is rooted in animus against reproductive freedoms, and the decision legitimizes conservative states’ attacks on facilities that provide abortion.
Planned Parenthood provides essential health services such as cancer screening and contraception to largely underserved populations. Allowing states to block the organization’s receipt of Medicaid dollars will severely narrow the pool of providers available to serve Medicaid patients — resulting in poorer health outcomes and wider health disparities.
Beyond access to health care, today’s decision reduces judicial oversight of the Medicaid program and could set a precedent for limiting beneficiaries’ avenues for recourse when their rights are violated in public benefit programs established under federal law.
With the Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to health programs and agencies, meaningful judicial oversight is needed now more than ever.”
Katie Keith, Founding Director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law and Director of National Affairs and Programs
“Millions of women and families rely on Planned Parenthood, day in and day out, for access to essential health care—from cancer screening to contraception. Today’s Supreme Court decision paves the way for states to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs, making it even harder for low-income women in South Carolina and beyond to access the care they need. But that’s not all.
As the Supreme Court issued its ruling, Congress continues to consider legislation that would defund Planned Parenthood nationwide. If this bill becomes law, it will put 200 health centers at risk of closing and further devastate access to vital health care for women across the country.”
Rebecca Reingold, Associate Director, O’Neill Institute and Sarah Wetter, Senior Associate
“The Supreme Court’s decision today in Medina v. Planned Parenthood denies Medicaid beneficiaries the ability to sue over their right to choose their health care provider, allowing states to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. As Justice Jackson states in her dissent, “today’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people.” Its downstream effects include reduced access to contraception, particularly for low-income people who are already disproportionately affected by “contraceptive deserts” and other barriers to essential sexual and reproductive health care.
Efforts to exclude Planned Parenthood clinics from the Medicaid program reflect a broader phenomenon known as “abortion exceptionalism,” or the tendency to subject abortion to unique — and uniquely burdensome — rules that have no bearing on health or safety. This exceptionalism is prevalent in how the law treats speech, financing, procedures, medications, and facilities tied to abortion, as well as the individuals who seek and provide such care. Abortion exceptionalism can also have downstream consequences for access to other types of health care, as we saw in Medina today. The Supreme Court missed a critical opportunity to push back against this troubling and harmful trend.”
For media inquiries, please contact oneillcomms@georgetown.edu.