- The Supreme Court ruled states can limit Medicaid funds to abortion providers.
- Utah lawmakers plan to use this ruling to restrict funds to Planned Parenthood.
- Pro-Life Utah supports the ruling; Planned Parenthood warns of reduced health care access.
SALT LAKE CITY — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Planned Parenthood cannot sue South Carolina over an order that prohibits Medicaid funding from being used at clinics that provide abortions.
Utah lawmakers are already making moves to take advantage of the new legal precedent that could allow them to place additional restrictions on Medicaid funding that previously went to abortion providers.
The 6-3 decision, which split the conservatives and liberals on the court, effectively allows states to limit funds to providers that perform abortions, like Planned Parenthood. The case hinged on a technical point about whether federal law gives Medicaid users an enforceable legal right to determine what "any qualified provider" means.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the proper remedy lies not with the courts, but with Congress, which could add more specific direction to Medicaid funding provisions if they want to ensure it includes Planned Parenthood.
Federal statute already prohibits Medicaid funds from being used to provide abortions. But Thursday's decision will impact states like Utah that have waged legal battles to ban or defund abortion clinics, according to Bill Duncan, a Constitutional Law & Religious Freedom Fellow at Sutherland Institute.
"Prior to today's decision, a state saying, 'Hey, we don't want to give any of our funds to abortion providers might have looked at situations like Utah's and thought, 'Wow, can we really do that?'" Duncan told the Deseret News. "And the answer seems to be, yes, they can."
In 2015, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert directed Utah's Department of Health to halt the flow of federal funds to the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah in response to undercover videos that alleged the organization sold fetal tissue for profit.
The order was met by a lawsuit from Planned Parenthood that ultimately ended in Planned Parenthood's favor, with the 10th Circuit Court holding that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop "pass-through" federal funds from reaching Planned Parenthood.
Is this a anti-abortion victory?
While the Supreme Court opinion on Thursday mostly dealt with legal minutiae about whether the Medicaid Act creates an individual federal right, it will be seen as a win for the anti-abortion cause by many because it will allow states to restrict Medicaid dollars to organizations with ties to abortion, Duncan said.
"People have been concerned for years that Planned Parenthood provides abortions, gets a lot of money from the states," Duncan said. "Is there a way to limit abortion providers' access to federal or state funding? The answer seems to be, well, yeah, states actually do have some leeway to do that."
Pro-Life Utah is "thrilled" about what it considers a victory that will allow states to clamp down on public money given to abortion providers — and hopes Utah follows South Carolina's lead, said Mary Taylor, the group's president.
"I guarantee that if this is implemented in Utah, it will affect Planned Parenthood's ability to perform abortions," Taylor said. "It's just egregious to force our citizens to spend their hard-earned money in the way of tax dollars to support an organization that slaughters unborn babies every single day."
Pro-Life Utah's argument has long been that even if federal and state funds are not given to Planned Parenthood for the purpose of performing abortions, that money is still "fungible," or can be used to strengthen an organization financially that provides abortions.
Utah's abortion "trigger law" that banned all elective abortions, with exceptions for those pregnancies that result from incest or rape, or that pose a threat to the life of the mother, continues to be held up in litigation, with the next hearing in April of 2026, Taylor said.
But in the meantime, she said Utah lawmakers could pass a restriction on Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. There are many other clinics that do not provide abortions where Medicaid users can access pregnancy-related health care, Taylor said.
A sponsor of Utah's 2020 abortion ban and its 2023 amendment, Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, said in a statement to the Deseret News that she has already "opened a bill file to clarify Utah law" in response to the Supreme Court ruling.
"The governor of South Carolina whose executive order is the foundation for this case, rightly stated that when Medicaid funds flow to businesses that provide abortions, taxpayers are subsidizing abortions," Lisonbee said.
Lisonbee's co-sponsor on both pieces of legislation, Sen. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, also cheered on the Supreme Court ruling in a statement even as he criticized Utah's Supreme Court for questioning the state's abortion ban.
Planned Parenthood pushes back
The Planned Parenthood Association of Utah said in a statement that other states are likely to follow South Carolina's example in blocking Medicaid coverage for Planned Parenthood services that include birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing and other preventive health care.
This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has made major rulings in favor of states that want to ban abortion. In 2022, the court overturned the 50-year precedent of Roe v. Wade, deciding there is no constitutional right to an abortion at any point in a pregnancy.
In a statement given to the Deseret News, Latter-day Saints for Life founder Jessica Spackman said the ruling demonstrates the Supreme Court's repeated affirmation of states' rights and adds momentum to the anti-abortion movement nationwide.
