Pro-life Americans — and anyone who doesn’t think taxpayer funds should be used to provide abortions — has a reason to celebrate after the latest US Supreme Court decision.

The high court’s conservative majority sided with South Carolina in its attempt to exempt abortion provider Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid funding.

Specifically, the decision determined that patients who receive Medicaid assistance aren’t in a position to sue the state in order to receive a preferred provider.

The Hill provided additional details:

The law says that “any individual” insured through Medicaid “may obtain” care from any qualified and willing provider.

ADVERTISEMENT

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that Medicaid recipients do not have the right to sue to enforce that provision.

In a statement Thursday, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) praised the ruling.

“Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina’s authority and values – and today, we are finally victorious,” he said.

The ruling paves the way for the state to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving funding through Medicaid. The ruling only applies to South Carolina, where abortion is already outlawed after six weeks of pregnancy, but could be a template for other states.

The decision sparked significant social media reaction, including widespread praise from those who agree with South Carolina’s position:

Murder if they must but don’t make those who don’t murder pay for it.

— Marla (@MarlaBartoli) June 26, 2025

That’s a win for life! Why would PP even need Medicaid funding to begin with?

— Conservative Forum (@CForumGA) June 26, 2025

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has ruled in a 6-3 decision in the Medina v. Planned Parenthood case that state Medicaid programs can DEFUND Planned Parenthood.

Huge breakthrough for the cause of life. Planned Parenthood should absolutely NOT receive a dime of taxpayer money.

H/T:… pic.twitter.com/766TeWvwC2

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) June 26, 2025

Politico also provided some details from the recent decision:

“Doubtless, this language speaks to what a State must do to participate in Medicaid, and a State that fails to fulfill its duty might lose federal funding. Doubtless, too, this provision seeks to benefit both providers and patients,” Gorsuch wrote. But he said the provision lacked “unambiguous ‘rights-creating language’” that would allow patients to sue in federal court.

Gorsuch suggested the federal government could penalize a state for violating the guarantee that Medicaid patients can visit any qualified and willing provider. The Trump administration seems unlikely to do that, but a future administration might.

Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, also said Planned Parenthood could attempt to challenge the ban directly under state law, rather than trying to sue under a federal civil rights statute, as it did in this case. That statute, passed in 1871, allows people to sue state officials who violate the “rights, privileges or immunities” guaranteed by law or the Constitution.

ADVERTISEMENT

All three of the court’s liberal justices dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, painted the majority’s decision as part of a century-and-a-half-long “project of stymying one of the country’s great civil rights laws.”

Jackson, a Biden appointee, accused her conservative colleagues of adopting “a narrow and ahistorical reading” of the civil rights law and of resisting “the natural and obvious … reading” of the Medicaid statute.

Here’s a brief recap of the development, per NewsNation:

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport.

View the original article here.