Reproductive Rights Are Still Being Attacked in the Federal Courts - Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
Next month is the third anniversary of the U.S Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade and upended abortion access across the country. That devastating and monumental ruling was extreme in the conservative justices’ willingness to overturn decades of legal precedent and expose tens of millions of people to cruel and unnecessary attacks on their health and bodies just to push an unpopular political agenda. And while Dobbs was seismic in its impact, people who want to ban abortion everywhere with no exceptions aren’t done taking legally suspect cases to federal courts. Just last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case out of South Carolina, Media v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.
Given the substantial legal jargon and technicalities of this case, it’s not surprising many people who care about reproductive health care may not know much about it. But like the 2024 cases that focused on state arguments over attacks on medication abortion and the provision of abortion in emergency medical care, this seemingly narrow case has the potential to have an outsized impact on patients well outside of South Carolina, and certainly beyond abortion care.
At the heart of this case is whether patients who receive Medicaid, a public health insurance program that provides coverage for people and families of lower income, can choose their own health provider and bring a lawsuit when they are blocked from receiving care. Like many other bad-faith anti-abortion “legal” arguments, this has been settled law for decades, including as recently as a 2023 case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately, antiabortionists will continue bringing these dubious cases to court until they get the ruling they want.
South Carolina anti-abortion lawmakers claim the state’s Medicaid patients can’t receive care at Planned Parenthood because they aren’t “qualified” healthcare providers. There is no justification for the “unqualified” designation other than anti-abortion policy makers don’t like abortion providers. With services ranging from STI testing and treatment to breast and cervical cancer screenings, tens of thousands of Medicaid patients in SC access critical reproductive and sexual health care at Planned Parenthood, care that may be blocked if South Carolina wins.
Both proponents and opponents of abortion often focus on Planned Parenthood when discussing this case. With Planned Parenthood long being a huge target of anti-abortion laws, there is certainly some truth to that. But in addition to an attack on Planned Parenthood, this case is ultimately an attack on people who use Medicaid.
Many Medicaid patients—individuals and families of lower income, including children, pregnant people, people with disabilities, and seniors—already struggle to receive quality, consistent healthcare, because they can’t afford private insurance. By denying these patients the same rights as wealthier patients to choose their healthcare providers, a ruling in this case for South Carolina would further cement the fact that we have a two-tiered healthcare system based on your income and zip code, rather than your need for care.
Cutting off safety-net providers such as Planned Parenthood could also cut off reproductive health care completely for some of these patients. Because of increased state bureaucracy and low reimbursement rates, many physicians are reluctant or unable to take Medicaid patients. The anti-abortion protests outside of the U.S. Supreme Court last month, though, obsessively focused on inflammatory and medically inaccurate anti-abortion talking points, rather than any concern for low-income patients receiving the quality care they need.
As with other abortion court cases, what’s at stake here goes beyond abortion access. A ruling allowing states to dictate what care people can receive based on their income and health insurance status will reverberate throughout our healthcare system. As corrupt state governments prioritize tax cuts and handouts for the wealthy over safety net services, the legal precedent allowing lawmakers to cut services and providers for low-income people to pad their bottom line will leave the rest of us scrambling for all kinds of services, including healthcare.
Reproductive justice advocates have long said that abortion access is connected to economic justice. This case is a perfect example of that, and a ruling is expected in June. Whether a majority of justices will uphold precedent and protect low-income communities’ access to reproductive health care remains to be seen.
Fortunately many of us, particularly Black Women and communities of color, have long been connecting the dots between economic issues, such as access to affordable reproductive and maternal healthcare, and attempts to ban abortion, as well as calling for accountability for the politicians that push these anti-reproductive freedom agendas. As advocates we must continue this intersectional work, particularly when repressive policies start by attacking the people who are most marginalized. This work includes actions at the state and local levels, such as electing progressive champions in state and local governments, speaking out against cuts to care for any communities, and amplifying accurate and factual health information and research data. This work to protect access to care for all of us will continue, no matter what the Court decides next month.