❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of South Carolina’s effort to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics.
👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, Medicaid patients, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
📍WHEN & WHERE: The case stems from a 2018 executive order in South Carolina, with the Supreme Court issuing its ruling on June 26, 2025.
🎯IMPACT: The decision could pave the way for a number of state governments to bar Planned Parenthood from qualifying for Medicaid funding, delivering a significant financial blow to the abortion provider.
The Supreme Court has ruled that South Carolina has the authority to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics, siding with the state in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. Medicaid and government grants comprise a significant portion of Planned Parenthood’s funding, meaning the ruling likely signifies a substantial financial blow to the nation’s largest abortion provider.
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster (R) signed an executive order in 2018 directing the removal of abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, from the Medicaid provider list. McMaster argued that public health dollars directed to Planned Parenthood effectively subsidized abortions. Federal law already prohibits Medicaid funds from being used for abortions except under limited circumstances.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic contended that the issue was not about abortion but about access to general healthcare services, including contraception, cancer screenings, and STI testing. The organization operates just two clinics in South Carolina. The abortion provider argued that blocking Medicaid funding could significantly impact patients’ access to “care.”
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, stating that Medicaid patients could sue to protect their individual right to choose a qualified provider. However, the Supreme Court found that the lower court misinterpreted precedent and that it “permits private plaintiffs to sue for violations of federal spending-power statutes only in ‘atypical’ situations, Talevski, 599 U. S., at 183, where the provision in question ‘clear[ly]’ and ‘unambiguous[ly]’ confers an individual ‘right.'”
Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.