The court’s ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood twists logic, common sense, and the law to further the right-wing assault on bodily autonomy.
A pro-choice demonstrator holds a sign in front of the US Supreme Court Building as the Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic case is heard on Wednesday, April 2, 2025.(Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
The Supreme Court dealt a devastating blow to women, their ability to choose their own doctor, and the entire structure of civil rights protections today. By a vote of 6–3 (which broke down along the usual partisan lines), the court ruled that women on Medicaid cannot choose their own doctor, or sue the state to defend their civil rights, unless Republican state legislators in South Carolina approve.
This case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, is not about abortion—at least not as a legal matter. Since the passage of the Hyde Amendment back in 1976, federal funds, including Medicaid funds, cannot be used for abortion services. The Hyde Amendment is one of the worst laws we’ve ever passed, and a consistent excuse for treating women’s health care as a political chit, but this case did not challenge it. Nor did it seek to overturn the Republican court’s neolithic stance on abortion rights.
But this case is all about abortion as a political matter. That’s because, in 2018, South Carolina passed a law saying that Medicaid funds could not be used with any provider that also provides abortion services, even if the patient isn’t seeking an abortion.
Planned Parenthood provides a lot of medical services to people that have nothing to do with abortion. It is a critical health care provider to poor women, who are much more likely to be on Medicaid. South Carolina’s law was a direct attack on Planned Parenthood for its abortion services, but also an attack on poor women who need healthcare whose only crime is being poor.
The plaintiff in this case, Julie Edwards, went to Planned Parenthood for general gynecological services. Edwards is a diabetic and has increased risks for pregnancy. She claimed that Planned Parenthood not only provided the care she needed, but did so in a “judgment-free” environment… which I imagine can be pretty hard to find in South Carolina. She sued the state over its anti–Planned Parenthood law, accusing South Carolina of violating her civil rights under Section 1983 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act.
In truth, Edwards didn’t even need to give a reason for why she preferred Planned Parenthood doctors, because the 1965 Medicaid Act includes a freedom-of-choice provision right in its text. If states accept Medicaid funds, they must also “provide that…any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required.”
Read that language closely. It doesn’t say “any institution, except for Planned Parenthood” or “only institutions that Jesus agrees with.” It’s a blanket rule that ensures freedom of choice to Medicaid recipients.
At least it did until the Supreme Court took it away today. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the 6–3 Republican supermajority, ruled that the statute I just quoted was not “clear” or “unambiguous” enough to support a private right to sue when freedom of choice is violated. He wrote that the language in the Medicaid statute guaranteeing freedom of choice doesn’t actually create an “enforceable right” to a freedom of choice. He said that if Congress wanted to create a right to choose your own doctor, it could have, but somehow it didn’t, even though Congress literally says that people can get medical care from “any” institution qualified to perform the services.
When people accuse the Republicans on the Supreme Court of making things up as they go along to justify their own personal policy preferences, this is what they mean. There is no commonsense read of the Medicaid statute that doesn’t include freedom of choice. There is no legal analysis of the statute that doesn’t include freedom of choice. There is no history of precedent interpreting the Medicaid statute that doesn’t include freedom of choice. There is just no way to explain what the conservatives are doing here other than servicing their own political agenda in a way that is detached from any logical or reasonable reading of the law and text of the statute.
That political agenda is, again, not just about abortion, and not just about the Republicans’ ongoing war against women’s health. The agenda also involves the continued evisceration of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the denuding of the Reconstruction Amendments in this court’s quest to reset this country to antebellum times.
The 1871 version of the Civil Rights Act still serves a critical function in modern law because it includes the private right to sue. Section 1983 of the law is the thing that lets people sue over discrimination. Without it, there’s no ability for individual citizens to hold the government accountable for violations of civil rights.
I know that many important organizations are asking you to donate today, but this year especially, The Nation needs your support.
Over the course of 2025, the Trump administration has presided over a government designed to chill activism and dissent.
The Nation experienced its efforts to destroy press freedom firsthand in September, when Vice President JD Vance attacked our magazine. Vance was following Donald Trump’s lead—waging war on the media through a series of lawsuits against publications and broadcasters, all intended to intimidate those speaking truth to power.
The Nation will never yield to these menacing currents. We have survived for 160 years and we will continue challenging new forms of intimidation, just as we refused to bow to McCarthyism seven decades ago. But in this frightening media environment, we’re relying on you to help us fund journalism that effectively challenges Trump’s crude authoritarianism.
For today only, a generous donor is matching all gifts to The Nation up to $25,000. If we hit our goal this Giving Tuesday, that’s $50,000 for journalism with a sense of urgency.
With your support, we’ll continue to publish investigations that expose the administration’s corruption, analysis that sounds the alarm on AI’s unregulated capture of the military, and profiles of the inspiring stories of people who successfully take on the ICE terror machine.
We’ll also introduce you to the new faces and ideas in this progressive moment, just like we did with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani. We will always believe that a more just tomorrow is in our power today.
Please, don’t miss this chance to double your impact. Donate to The Nation today.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and publisher, The Nation
Predictably, the Republicans on the court are hell-bent on getting rid of Section 1983, or whittling it down until it protects nothing. In Medina, Gorsuch takes a giant step toward doing just that. The legal upshot of his ruling is that Congress cannot create a right to sue under Section 1983 unless it uses “clear” and “unambiguous” language. And even if it does, as it did in the Medicaid Act, Gorsuch can just deny the obvious clarity of that language and ban it anyway. The result is that only Neil Gorsuch (and his Republican friends) can tell what’s “clear” and what’s not, and Gorsuch here proves that he’s able to insert faux-ambiguity into any statute he doesn’t like.
This repudiation of civil rights is what Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson zeroed in on in her dissent. She wrote: “[T]he project of stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws continues.… South Carolina asks us to hollow out [Section 1983] so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors. The Court abides South Carolina’s request. I would not.”
It’s been three years since the court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, but the conservatives are still using abortion as the Trojan Horse to smuggle in all of their worst ideas about reshaping the country in their white male image. Here, in a case that isn’t even about abortion, the Republican justices have managed to take away freedom of medical choice for poor women, limit the effectiveness of Medicaid, and eviscerate the private right to sue over issues of discrimination and civil rights. They’ve done it all because South Carolina passed a law targeted at Planned Parenthood, a law that should have been ruled facially unconstitutional in the pre-Dobbs environment when it was passed. And, almost as an externality to their dread aims, they’ve managed to dissuade any medical institution, hospital, or clinic, from providing abortion services, lest they too be kicked off of Medicaid.
This case is a terrible and perfect example of why taking back control of the Supreme Court must be the first priority for Democrats should they ever be allowed to wield power again. Civil rights in this country cannot survive the loss of the Civil Rights Act. Women’s rights in this country cannot survive Neil Gorsuch’s magic abilities to insert ambiguity into any statute that doesn’t involve Native Americans. And abortion rights, “restored” or otherwise… straight up cannot survive any Republican power on the Supreme Court.
If you’re a straight white man, congratulations. If you’re anybody else, this Supreme Court has it in for you.
Elie MystalTwitterElie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent and a columnist. He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. He is the author of two books: the New York Times bestseller Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution and Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America, both published by The New Press. You can subscribe to his Nation newsletter “Elie v. U.S.” here.