Supreme Court gives victory to Planned Parenthood in Medicaid case
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left lower court victories intact for Planned Parenthood in a legal battle with states over access by Medicaid patients to the group's services.
The dispute did not involve abortion, but the action by the justices keeps a hot-button political issue off the docket. Three of the court's conservatives said the court should have taken the case.
After an anti-abortion group released videos in 2015 that purported to show officials from Planned Parenthood talking about selling fetal tissue, several states immediately terminated Medicaid provider agreements with the group's affiliates. The videos were largely discredited, but the states involved said they found the allegations troubling.
Medicaid patients in Kansas and Louisiana, two of the states that took action against Planned Parenthood, claimed the states violated Medicaid's requirement that patients must be free to seek their health care from any qualified and willing provider. They sued, and lower federal courts found in their favor, entering injunctions that ordered those states to lift their bans.
In declining to take up the states' appeals, the Supreme Court's action on Monday leaves those lower court victories for the Medicaid patients in place.
Planned Parenthood offers Medicaid patients vaccines, wellness examinations, screening for breast and cervical cancer, contraception services and pregnancy testing. But abortion is not offered, because federal funds cannot pay for them except in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment. The Kansas affiliate said it provides "essential medical care for hundreds of low-income Kansans each year."
The states argued that the Medicaid law does not give individual patients the right to sue when health care providers are excluded. If a state acts improperly, they said, the law provides only one remedy: The federal government can withhold Medicaid funds from the states. "Allowing private enforcement destroys the careful balance Congress established between the states and federal agencies," lawyers for Louisiana told the court.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have taken up the appeals because the issue of whether Medicaid recipients can sue is an important one.
"These cases are not about abortion rights," Thomas wrote. "So what explains the court's refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named 'Planned Parenthood.'"
"Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty," he said.
The states had argued that with more than 70 million people enrolled in Medicaid, allowing individuals to sue could swamp the system and interfere with state systems for evaluating health care providers.
Planned Parenthood urged the court not to take up the state appeals, arguing that the lower court rulings involved preliminary injunctions, not final rulings on the merits of the lawsuits.
Tags
Who is online
90 visitors
Thoughts?
I was surprised at the decision but obviously I support it.
I'm not actually that surprised by the decision not to hear this case before the Supreme Court. The Court should take that attitude more often, but sadly for a variety of reasons, the Court so often gets involved in matters that the US Congress is afraid to vote on. As for Kavanaugh voting with the liberals, that dosen't surprise me either. He is an excellent Justice for one thing and this wasn't the case to address this issue. There will be a few more down the road. Choose your battles wisely!
I honestly think he chose not to pursue this case on purpose, after all the controversy about him and abortion.
He may do so at a later date.
I doubt that very much. He dosen't have anything to prove, nor will progressives ever consider him the fair minded Constitutionalist he is, even if he votes their way from now "till Hell freezes over.
It's nice to see Kavanaugh vote this way, but his behavior during his confirmation process totally disqualified him to me, and this will not change no matter how he votes on anything.
So because you did not like how things went before his confirmation, you will hold whatever he may do on the bench in the future against him? Very petty in my opinion.
I personally am glad the decision went the way it did on the Supreme Court.
Huh? How am I holding what he did on the bench against him? I'm endorsing his vote. I don't want the snivelling, arrogant, entitled little bitch on the Supreme Court, even if he votes the way I would like him to every time.
Thank you for proving my point. You have a nice day now.
It's a good thing that your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.
If everyone felt as you did about their own choice of person, nothing would ever get done. The confirmation hearings are over, he was confirmed, get over it.
I thought the same. He has an arrogant shitty attitude.
I don't think we're done here, as it is stated in the last two arguments in the story,
An easy solution for the states is don't deny women the right to get the healthcare THEY need from whom they can get it. Easy.
I can see this coming up again simply because they may not get permanent injunctions and, if they do, I can see the states revisiting the SCOTUS with a new appeal.
and again and again and again, etc
Surprised and pleased with his vote
Wow!
Kavanaugh is on SCOTUS and the world didn't end.
I'm so shocked you could knock me over with a feather.
Yeah. A Judge whose rulings aren't decided by what buzzword the case can be categorized by is a strange concept for a progressive.
Actually, they didn't rule on anything here. They just refused to hear the case.
Never said they did but read the article. Kavanaugh was one of the SCJ's who voted to not hear the case.
Now how could that have happened with a Trump appointed SCJ?
Perhaps he agrees with many other conservatives that think that this particular case was one of the weakest in the que. There are many to choose from and there is a very good possibility that one of those make the argument much more convincingly...
Actually it's an irrelevant case with a very limited claim.....
The Supreme court has always waited for a highly relevant case with wide impact.
They refused the case cause the issue wasn't ripe for judgment....
A temporary victory.....
How can it be a 'temporary victory' if it was an 'irrelevant case'?
As for the SCOTUS 'always waiting for a highly relevant case with wide impact', that's utter BS. Many SCOTUS decisions have very little scope for anyone other than the plaintiff and defendant. An example of that is our much debated baker decision which effect him, only him, and ONLY in that one transaction. You can't get a much more narrow impact...
Well you can state your biases as often as you want..... Thankfully your biases are not what the supreme court bases their decisions on......
Clearly they said the case was refused so it goes back to local jurisdiction for further action.
Throughout my decades of following SC cases it means that either the case wasn't ripe for decision or the issue in the case wasn't of sufficient scope to warrant reviewing it...... The states appealed a minor ruling well within the presiding courts jurisdiction not really effecting the the main issues.....
Their decision was the correct one for purely legal issues. forget about the politics of it....
The Colorado bakers case has implications that go way beyond the issue of the baker and his rights. only a very narrow mind can think otherwise.... It's like saying that the Heller decision only effected that single gun owners right to have a weapon in WA DC...
Very narrow political thinking on display here....
Actually they would have upheld the ruling against the baker. The only reason he won was because of perceived bias against him. They did not change or alter existing law.
What 'biases' are those NWM? Please be specific?
You must obviously take me for a fool.....
{chuckle}
Actually it was more along the line of the governments political bias that caused an unfair situation..... and an unjust judgment against him.....
But it also clearly stated that the baker has the right to run his business anyway he chooses to, and the government on the basis of fairness cannot persecute him for such.
In other words, the law is not a sword to be used against those you disagree with....
So yes a win for the baker, it didn't directly overturn any law, just nixed the way certain political establishments want to use the law to their own political ends....
I expect more such rulings..... the law is not a weapon to be used by those in control of government to destroy those it perceives as political enemies......
A favorite tactic of the progressive democrat controlled state governments.....
Actually, per the CoC, I really can't say what I take you as NWM, but I can say that you seem unwilling and unable to support your comments.
I for one refrain from making accusations against members that I can't support with evidence, or at minimum a quote from the member that bolsters the accusation. You and I don't have the same standards...
Nope. That is a clueless statement. You really must abhor reading.
I'm sure, likewise from the other direction.
I tend to support my statements when conversing with someone that it is worth it, with you it isn't....
So we have a mutual dislike for each other.... understandable. Nothing I could ever say would meet with your approval cause you and I have seriously different beliefs in every way imaginable.
So why don't we do each other a favor and not address each other....
Save the mods a lot of work besides I've mellowed a lot in my old age and the doc's say that is a good thing....
Permanent impasse in all things....
Agreed?
Have at it my friend.... My pleasure..... {chuckle}
Some of the justices may have said certain things along that lines, but that is not what was ruled on.
They did not say he could run the business any way he wanted, they also did not say he couldn't, that was never ruled on.
The baker won because they said the commission had bias. They did not rule on whether he could or could not refuse service.
Psst..... I know that, the point being, she's claiming it's a win, when it wasn't. So I decided to have a little fun...
Anything wrong with that?
Can you answer me a question?
What the hell am I whispering for?
Fun with fonts?
People have told me that I get quieter when I get stoned.
Also louder when I drink.
So I mix the two. Balance ya know.
Only when I'm in that state I seem to keep falling over..... otherwise I'm all for balance.....
I wish everyone could take a lighter tone, but it just seem's like lighter is the new heavy.....
I'm tired of balancing one side to another.... and the steady droning on and on about how we are all bad people and should just expire or get out of the way and let everyone else have it their way....
How we are all wrong and they are all right.....
I wonder sometimes how we made it this far.....
Musta been something in the water....
Your inability and/or unwillingness to support your own statements has NOTHING to do with MY worth...
Facts don't need either my approval or yours. They stand on their own. Our 'different beliefs' are most notable when it comes to posting comments based on facts vs. animus.
I haven't had any issues with mods. If you have, that's on you. If you don't want to interact, DON'T. I'll post whenever the hell I want...
so be it.....
Have a nice day....
Maybe he was drunk at the time?
Or maybe a bunch of progressive liberals went all Chicken Little over nothing?
Yep, could be.
COULD be?
LMAO!
That is like being a "little bit pregnant"!
So, I agree that maybe that could be the case and you want to pick an insult.
Thanks, we're done.
No need to get your feelings all hurt.
It is an expression--surely you have heard of it before??!!?!
WTF was the insult?
My "feelings" don't get hurt like that.
And as I posted, we're done here.
The correct solution is to repeal Medicaid and let each state determine if it wants to pay for health services
James Madison Federalist No. 45, Alleged Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered, Independent Journal, January 26, 1788;
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” –
States do just that now LFOD.
Medicaid doesn't FORCE states to do anything so Federalists 45 is moot...
Nonsense. Medicaid is a Federally funded program. Many states do have state run programs that rely upon Federal Medicaid funds
tHe existence of Medicaid and Medicare violate the Constitution and Madison’s clear explanation in Federalist 45
Nonsense? You admit that it's Federally funded so HOW does that FORCE states to DO anything?
You should know better than to bring up a Federalist paper to bolster your posit. Every time I catch you at it I eviscerate your posit. You love to post snippets of those papers to pretend that either Madison or Hamilton agree with your position. So far, your attempts have failed every time.
Again, Medicaid does not FORCE states to DO anything. States CHOOSE @ what level they participate. STOP the BS.
The Federalist Papers are a fine read. But they are essentially just an advertisement to get people to ratify the US Constitution at the time. They are not the same as the Constitution.
Nonsense the Federalist papers contain the explanations for every dot and tittle of the Constitution
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449h
The Supreme Court Justices often refer to the Federalist papers for insight on interpreting the Constitution and often cite a specific paper in their opinions
The Supreme Court cited the Federalist Papers 179 times between 1935-1991. It has doubled that number since 1991
You appear to completely lack comprehension of what I’m saying
Medicaid is a federal program funded by federal income taxes and thus unconstitutionally usurps the power of the states.
every state that administers a Medicaid plan relies upon mostly federal funding. The only recent difference lies with the Obamacare Medicaid eligibility EXPANSION
to properly administer a state program, Medicaid must be repealed and let each state determine whether it wants such a program and what the citizens are willing to be taxed to pay for
Really? So you would be ok if the Constitution did not have a Bill of Rights, per the Federalist no. 84? What you fail to understand is that the Federalist papers are a "rough draft" of the Constitution. They clearly do not equal or exactly mirror the final product.
A critical component of statutory construction is determining the intent of the people who craft legislation. To this end, the Federalist Papers have been cited in many Supreme Court opinions and explicitly factored into the opinions of many justices. Examples include Printz v. US (1997), Alden v. Maine (1999), Clinton v. City of New York (1998), and Bush v. Gore (2000) among many others.
That's a far cry from stating that the federalist papers is akin to the Constitution itself. The writings of the Founding Fathers have also been used in determining intentions regarding legislation. Ultimately, it's the Constitution that is the crux of judicial review and opinion. At the time they were written, the Federalist papers were meant to advertise the Constitution for ratification.
Oh I comprehend exactly what you're saying. I also comprehend that you're contradicting yourself.
Perhaps you can explain how a Federally funded program FORCES a state to DO anything. I won't be holding my breath for a cogent answer.
Yet YOU fail to interpret not only the Federalist Papers, but the Constitution coherently. Well done.
BTFW, the Federalist papers aren't 'the debates'. There are quite a few cases when the 'arguments' made in the Federalists failed during debate...
Sixteenth Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes , from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Other Constitutional provisions regarding taxes :
Article I , Section 2, Clause 3:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
I know exactly what you're saying. You're saying that women should be forced to have babies and then, if the mother can't afford a doctor, those babies should just be allowed to die.
Will anyone who was saying what a disaster Kavanaugh would be for women now be willing to consider that maybe they prejudged him unfairly?
The only reason he and Roberts didn't want to take the case was to settle the waters about partisan bias and a highly sensitive issue that will piss off more young and old women than they can imagine. Or maybe they can. Trump pissed off Roberts and he doesn't want more drama at this point.
Oh is that what he told you when you called him on the phone?
Try to be consistent. If these guys hate women as much as Democrats claim, why would they care about their feelings?
'now be willing to consider that maybe they prejudged him unfairly?'
Nope.
[Removed]