The legal thesis that has brought the cases to SCOTUS is whether or not a private entity has the ability to bring suit over a State’s decision in administration of Medicaid services, in this case, whether or not the State can deny certification to a provider without being subject to review by a non-governmental entity. The non-governmental review is a right of action by Medicaid recipients to receive services from any qualified entity that agrees to do so, and that is also willing to accept Medicaid reimbursements to do so.
The denial of certiorari means that the rulings of lower courts in these two cases are allowed to stand, and that Planned Parenthood and its clients can pursue a lawsuit challenging the decertifications, and that the Medicaid reimbursements for services can continue.
Of particular concern to me are two avenues: in the first point, the states of Kansas and Louisiana decided to terminate eligibility of Planned Parenthood providers in their respective states in response to spurious claims by the “Center for Medical Progress” that Planned Parenthood and it’s affiliates were harvesting and selling fetal body parts for profit. Claims and films that were shown to be b spurious and deceptively edited. Every State that has investigated has found these claims to be false.
Of note Is that no clinic in the States of Kansas or Louisiana were accused of this practice by The Center For Medical Progress, and that Medicaid funds, by law, cannot be used for abortion services. An inspection by the State of Kansas did not show any finding that the Planned Parenthood clinics in that State had engaged in the sale of fetal tissue.
But, even though all investigations have shown no basis for the claim of selling fetal body parts for profit, these two states have persisted in attempts to disqualify Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid reimbursements
The second avenue that I find disturbing, is that, even though Justice Thomas, in his dissent, tries to claim that the case is really about a private party’s ability to second-guess a States decision in regards to Medicaid services, his dissent nonetheless introduces the spurious charges claimed by The Center For Medical Progress.
To my view, and bear in mind I am not a lawyer, what is really the reason that Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch want to see these cases before SCOTUS is to close off avenues of redress to arbitrary decisions by State agencies.
The dissenting opinion is here (PDF)
