The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected appeals by Louisiana and Kansas seeking to end their public funding to women’s healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood through the Medicaid program, with President Donald Trump’s appointee Brett Kavanaugh among the justices who rebuffed the states.
The justices left intact lower court rulings that prevented the two states from stripping government healthcare funding from local Planned Parenthood affiliates. The case was one of a number of disputes working their way up to the Supreme Court over the legality of state-imposed restrictions involving abortion.
Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the decision by the nine-member conservative-majority court, saying it should have heard the appeals by the states.
At least four justices must vote to grant review for the court to hear an appeal. Along with the four liberal justices, Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts – the court’s two other conservative justices – opposed taking up the matter.
Planned Parenthood’s affiliates in Louisiana do not perform abortions, but some in Kansas do. Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income Americans, pays for abortions only in limited circumstances, such as when a woman’s life is in danger.
It marked the first-known vote by Kavanaugh in a case since he joined the court in October after a fierce confirmation fight in the Senate. Some Kavanaugh opponents had feared he would back legal efforts to overturn or further restrict the legal right to abortion.
Thomas suggested that the justices who rejected the appeals had put politics over the law.
“So what explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood,’” Thomas wrote in dissent.
“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas added.
Full story at Reuters.
Of course it did. This was not about abortion, as some would claim. It was about women’s access to health care.
I trust and believe Planned Parenthood as far as I can throw them……….
Justice Thomas is entirely correct: SCOTUS is cowardly, craven for public adulation (at least respect). How else can anyone explain Chief Justice Robert’s improper outburst against the President of the United States regarding the notion that “we don’t have Obama Judges, etc.” Of course you do, CJ, and you know it. The judiciary is as corrupt and political as any branch of government. They are “all in” on abortion “privacy” rights (just where is that CJ Roberts in the Constitution?) and will not, ever, never strike down the “fundamental” right of a mother to murder her child — for any reason. Aside from the brave three, the Justices are afraid of PP and more than afraid of being unpopular.
Roberts and Kavanaugh may be looking for a case more clearly dealing with abortion.
I agree with this. Declining to hear a case does not indicate how a justice would rule on the merits of the case. The Supreme Court sets precedent by its rulings, and the legal scope of the cases that were declined might not have been pressing enough to warrant the top court’s review, given other cases being considered for review.
This is completely wrong, “mike m.” Roberts and K are fearful of abortion; Roberts because he fears an attack on the “reputation” of the Court (read popularity) and K because of the beating he took and because he is really a reincarnation of Justice Kennedy (for whom he clerked) and no conservative. Our praise must be reserved for President Trump alone, who stood up and nominated two apparently outstanding men (one has proven to be a find; the other a deserter). Pray for the millions of babies murdered by their mothers.
Are you a mind reader, St. Christopher? Did you ask the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh to specify the reasons they voted to deny certiorari, and did they tell you? If no to either or both, what justifies your writing “[t]his is completely wrong, ‘mike m'”? Hubris, perhaps?
“Facts”: Not “hubris” but opinion (which we can all have). I would now add, but did not then for fear of space limits, that my views are shared by a number of recent analysts. Others, however, take a different views; some saying, for example, that the case is not yet truly ripe for review and that R and K each appear willing to wait until SCOTUS review is actually needed. Still, I will go with Clarence Thomas and his frustration over the Court’s complete dodge (or did you take the time to read the full dissent?). You know, it is important to think things through, “Facts,” and not meekly accept the offal that someone hands you to eat, claiming it is candy.
Make whatever excuses you want for Roberts and Kavanaugh—-they wated an opportunity.
Of course, the DEMS would waste no opportunity. They are true believers.
Marge— same questions to you as I posed to mike m. I made no “excuses” for either Justice. Only asked the writer the sources justifying their “certainty.