Welcome to Breakpoint, a daily look, in an ever-changing culture through the lens of unchanging truth.

For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.

At issue is whether individual states can deny Medicaid funds to abortion industry organizations like Planned Parenthood.

According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, whose lawyers are arguing the case, this started back in

2018 when South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster directed that no Medicaid money could go to groups

that perform abortions. The governor argued, quote, the payment of taxpayer funds to abortion

for any purpose results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life, end quote.

And using government cash for abortion not only offends the moral sensibilities of millions of

Americans, but for 45 years now, the Hyde Amendment has, quote, prohibited covered funds to be expended for any abortion or to provide health benefits coverage that includes abortion, end quote.

With his directive, the governor of South Carolina was eliminating an in run on the clear intent of that law.

As one supporter put it, quote, states should be free to use taxpayer dollars

in accordance with their own state laws and priorities. No citizen should be forced to fund facilities

that perform life-ending and medically fraught procedures like abortion, end quote. But despite the

overarching moral concerns at the heart of the case, the oral arguments centered on particular words and concerns, as it often does at the Supreme Court.

Specifically, existing law specifies that Medicaid can go to any qualified provider the patient chooses.

So at issue here is whether South Carolina is required to allow funds to go to Planned Parenthood as a medical provider.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney-Barritt from either side of the ideological aisle expressed hesitation about South Carolina's claims to different degrees that the law does not contain rights-creating language. In reply,

ADF attorney John Burst pointed out that, and I quote, the fact that the 12 of us can have such a

robust conversation about whether this statute is mandatory or not, whether it's rights-creating

or not, demonstrates that the rights-creating language is ambiguous, not clear, and explicit, end quote.

And given the over 140 federally approved pregnancy support centers in the state of South Carolina,

...