[ad_1]
The battle for financing taxpayers for planned parenting is central to the US Supreme Court on Wednesday in a dispute over the exclusion of South Carolina Group from the Medicaid state program as it provides abortions.
Line is the ability of Medicaid beneficiaries to freely choose a healthcare provider, including planned parental doctors who provide services other than abortion, such as treatment of contraception and cancer screening.
The two planned parenting clinics in South Carolina have mainly served low -income women, and minorities for over 40 years. Hundreds of their patients have recipients of Medicaid.
The case also implies the millions of federal dollars that planned parenting receives in the form of reimbursement for the treatment of patients with Medicaid every year.
According to planned parenting, 34% of its total revenue or $ 699 million comes from state grants, Medicaid contracts and funds.
In 2018, the Republican governor of South Carolina Henry McMaster issued executive orders that are unable to plan the planned parenting to receive Medicaid reimbursements for abortion services.
Julie Edwards, the beneficiary of Medicaid and type 1 diabetic, who sought medical attention at the Planned Parental Clinic in Colombia, SC, has filed a lawsuit against the state that is alleged to be a violation of the Medicaid Act, which guarantees a “free selection of a supplier” that is ready and qualified.
On this June 24, 2022, photography, Missouri and American flags fly outside the planned parenting in St. Louis.
Jeff Roberson/AP, file
“The beneficiaries of Medicaid often face significant barriers to receive care, especially in South Carolina. Twenty -five percent of the residents of the state live in medically undervalued areas,” the plaintiffs wrote in their brief court.
“[Congress] They accept the provision for free selection of a supplier to ensure that patients with Medicaid, like all others, can choose their doctor, “they write.” The Congress specifically accepted this provision in response to the efforts of some countries to limit the selection of a Medicaid patient supplier. “
The state claims that Congress has never intended to give people the right to judge access to a particular supplier and that there are many other clinics to serve recipients of Medicaid.
“Congress wanted countries to have a significant judgment to innovate with their Medicaid programs,” the state wrote in its brief court. Allow people to judge access to specific suppliers would “subjected the state to unforeseen (and expensive) lawsuits.”
While the federal law is already prohibiting any state funding for abortion, South Carolina claims that it has the right to focus on financing without abortion with abortion suppliers. “Because money is fungal, the provision of Medicaid dollars to abortion facilities releases their other funds to provide more abortion,” the state told the court.
“[Planned Parenthood] It can restore Medicaid funding if it stops abortions – but has chosen not to do it, “wrote South Carolina.
An unspoken photo shows the US Supreme Court building standing in Washington, Colombia County
Garen Muguerian/moment through Getty Images, Stock Photo
If the jurors allow the case to move forward, Edwards and planned parenting may continue to challenge the exclusion of clinics from the state program Medicaid in a lower court.
If the judges were aside with the state, they would strengthen efforts to break planned parenting from sources of state funding and effectively limit the number of suppliers available to recipients of Medicaid.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of the court’s term in June.
[ad_2]
Source link
