Despite the off-the-chain fear mongering by liberals about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh being a “disaster” for women’s rights and a threat to abortion rights, the newly appointed justice sided with the liberal wing of the high court in declining to hear a case that may have resulted in Planned Parenthood being defunded at the state level.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined with Kavanaugh in siding with the four liberal justices in declining to hear cases in which Louisiana and Kansas sought to stop the nation’s largest abortion provider from receiving Medicaid funding, according to the Washington Examiner.
Planned Parenthood will continue to participate in the program in the states as a result of Monday’s decision. Making Kavanaugh’s vote all the more important, only four justices are needed to agree to grant a hearing on a case.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, saying they believe the court did not get involved because the issue of abortion was at play, The Examiner reported.
“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.
He continued:
“That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion. It is true that these particular cases arose after several States alleged that Planned Parenthood affiliates had, among other things, engaged in ‘the illegal sale of fetal organs’ and ‘fraudulent billing practices,’ and thus removed Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider. […]
“But these cases are not about abortion rights. They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to challenge the States’ decisions; it concerns only the rights of individual Medicaid patients to bring their own suits.”
Thomas argued that the court had a duty to resolve that question.
“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas added. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”
With liberal protesters trying to turn Kavanaugh’s appointment into a battle over Roe v. Wade, the early results suggest it was much ado about nothing — then again, that’s an accurate assessment of most of their efforts.
Via BPR
