Supreme court weighs SC effort to defund Planned Parenthood: 5 reactions from both sides
2. Planned Parenthood is a 'medically qualified provider'
Nicole Saharsky, who argued the case for Planned Parenthood during oral arguments, claimed that South Carolina violated the law when denying a patient the ability to select the abortion provider for their healthcare.
"This court has repeatedly said that 'magic words' aren't required," Saharsky said in her opening statement. "There's no doubt about what Congress was trying to do here. It enacted this statute because states were artificially limiting the providers in Medicaid."
"And that's the same thing that the state is doing now. And Congress made this an individual right because it recognized that when the state does that, it hurts individual patients. It is the individual's right."
Saharsky claimed that the language of the statute — "may obtain care from any qualified and willing provider" — is "the same thing" as the hypothetical phrasing of "any individual has a right to obtain care from any qualified and willing provider."
The attorney also argued that South Carolina “conceded” throughout the litigation process that Planned Parenthood is a medically qualified provider, asserting that the state’s real issue is that "they just don't like Planned Parenthood."
Samantha Kamman is a reporter for The Christian Post. She can be reached at: samantha.kamman@christianpost.com. Follow her on Twitter: @Samantha_Kamman
