<[link removed]>



Supreme Court hacks away at civil rights in latest cruel ruling



In a decision that was expected but is no less appalling, the Supreme Court’s
conservative majority just gave the green light for states to defund Planned
Parenthood. But the majority decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood is so
much worse than that.

This case has generally been discussed in its factual context, which is
whether South Carolina could bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal
Medicaid funds. The legal context, though, is broader. After South Carolina cut
off Planned Parenthood funding, a patient, Julie Edwards, sued the state under
U.S. code section 1983, which allows private parties to sue the government when
it violates their rights. Edwards argued that Medicaid’s
“any-qualified-provider” provision confers the right for Medicaid patients to
use their physician of choice, and depriving Planned Parenthood of Medicaid
funding violated that right.




 



Your donation powers our fight to inform, mobilize, and resist the threats we
face. We can’t do this without you—donate $5 if you can.
<[link removed]
On Record&addr1=&city=Cedar Knolls&state=District of Columbia&phone=>


 



The court’s conservatives were always going to find a way to make it
perfectly fine for states to withhold Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood,
particularly given that they are all in on helping Trump, who has called for
the complete defunding of the organization. They get to that conclusion in a
sweeping, terrible way.

The majority held that section 1983 does not give anyone the right to sue to
enforce the Medicaid-related provision that says “any individual eligible for
medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any
institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the
service or services required.”

You, a normal person, might say, That certainly sounds like Medicaid patients
have a right to choose their provider. But the conservatives on the Supreme
Court would respond,You fool, you rube. This isn’t a right. It’s more of a
benefit, because we don’t really think that Congress meant for you to be able
to personally sue to enforce it, even though they explicitly said you must be
able to choose your care, for … reasons.



So we’ve got a bad factual decision and a bad procedural decision. But wait,
that’s not all!

The holding isn’t limited to Planned Parenthood. Rather, the holding is that
individual Medicaid recipients or clinics that receive Medicaid can’t sue to
enforce the law’s “any-qualified-provider” requirement.




 



🧡 Want to do more? Monthly donors are the backbone of Daily Kos. Just $5
today each can help maintain our coverageand stay independent.
<[link removed]
On Record&addr1=&city=Cedar Knolls&state=District of Columbia&phone=>


 



As bad as all of this is, it wasn’t enough for Justice Clarence Thomas, who
wrote a concurrence complaining that people just have too darn many rights they
can use section 1983 to enforce. Thomas wants the rights that people can sue to
enforce to be limited to how the term was understood when the Civil Rights Act
of 1871, the predecessor to section 1983, was passed. This is Thomas’s go-to
argument to restrict civil rights, a surface-level trip through history to
bolster his bad arguments.

In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did some actual factual history,
pointing out that the Civil Rights Act of 1871 was “an exercise in grand
ambition” in the wake of the Civil War, as white Southerners, aided by state
and local officials, terrorized newly freed Black people. The act was necessary
because the Reconstruction amendments had not adequately stopped state
violence, and one remedy was to allow private citizens to sue to secure their
rights.

Jackson’s dissent notes that this isn’t the first time the court weakened this
civil rights protection. They did it in multiple cases during the
Reconstruction era, and the court was not covering itself in glory back then.
In 1872, the court upheld a Kentucky statute that barred Black people from
testifying against white defendants. In 1883, the court ruled that the 13th and
14th amendments could not serve as the basis for Congress to enact a law
prohibiting private parties from discriminating against Black people.

There’s a straight line from those cases to this court’s ceaseless chipping
away at civil rights, particularly reproductive health. And these modern cases
are no less shameful than the court’s openly racist rulings following the Civil
War. The conservatives on the Supreme Court should be ashamed of themselves,
but they’re incapable of such a thing.



Click here to check out this story on DailyKos.com.
<[link removed]>




We're not asking for much



The average donation to Daily Kos has been just $9.44. These donations may
seem small, but they're a big deal to us. In fact, they are our largest source
of income. We literally couldn't do the work we do without them. Can you join
thousands of other Daily Kos readers and help us with a donation of $9.44 right
now?

Donate $9.44
<[link removed]
On Record&addr1=&city=Cedar Knolls&state=District of Columbia&phone=>



You received this email because you signed up for newsletters from Daily Kos.
To stop receiving this newsletter, unsubscribe
<[link removed]>
ormanage
<[link removed]
On Record&city=Cedar Knolls&state=District of Columbia&country=United
States&metadataCustom=testunsub> which newsletters you receive.