The Supreme Court justices expressed mixed views during oral arguments regarding Planned Parenthood's appeal against South Carolina's executive order prohibiting the organization from receiving Medicaid funding. Supporters argue that the order violates a 1965 law allowing Medicaid beneficiaries to choose qualified medical providers. While liberal justices leaned toward supporting Planned Parenthood's stance, some conservative justices showed openness to their argument. South Carolina's defense rests on the claim that patients should pursue administrative remedies rather than lawsuits. The debate centers on the interpretation of rights under federal law and patients' legal recourse.
"Because we understand colloquially that something might be a right, doesn’t mean that Congress has put a state on clear notice that it could be sued in federal court."
"Telling a state that it has an obligation to do something or that it must provide something isn't the same as saying you have the ability to sue them in federal court."
"One of my goals coming out of this will be to provide that clarity [for states, providers and beneficiaries]."
"The 1965 statute used 'mandatory, individual-centric, right-creating language' and the 'only thing it doesn't do is use the word 'right.'"
Collection
[
|
...
]