‘Medina v. Planned Parenthood’ Is One of the Term’s Most Consequential SCOTUS Cases
Imani Gandy and I will be covering Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic from Washington, D.C.

This piece first appeared in our weekly newsletter, The Fallout.
In a few short weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, one of the most consequential cases of the term—and Rewire News Group will be there in Washington, D.C. for the case.
Medina (previously known as Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, until then-South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services Director Robert Kerr retired and was replaced by Interim Director Eunice Medina) is the culmination of decades of attempts by the anti-choice movement to exclude Planned Parenthood affiliates from state Medicaid programs. Those affiliates provide essential medical services, including reproductive health care, to low-income residents across the country. Federal law dictates that only “qualified” providers can participate in the program, and that recipients have a “free choice of provider.” The TL;DR is that anti-choice politicians have long argued Planned Parenthood affiliates are not “qualified” for a myriad of bad-faith reasons, and the federal courts have long rejected those claims.
Until this case.
But whether Planned Parenthood affiliates can be considered “qualified” isn’t the question the Court will answer in Medina. The question the Court has been asked to answer is whether recipients have an enforceable right to choose their provider. Put another way, the Court is going to decide if Medicaid recipients generally have any way to make sure they can access the medical care providers are legally required to provide. This case is about more than reproductive health care. It’s about whether people on Medicaid—folks who are low income, pregnant, elderly, and/or disabled, have any rights when it comes to their health care at all.
The fact that this question is even before the Court is thanks in large part to its decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That point can’t be made enough.
Here’s where the news gets better: The Court hears oral arguments in the case April 2, and with so much at stake in the case, Imani Gandy and I are headed to D.C. to cover the arguments.
But wait! There’s more! Imani and I are teaming up with Feminist Buzzkills’ Lizz Winstead and Moji Alawode-El for a live podcast in D.C. at The Black Cat on April 3 at 8 p.m. Here’s the link for tickets. Washington, D.C. friends and family, we would love to see you!