The Biden-Harris administration has withheld millions of dollars in federal funding from Oklahoma after the state refused to provide abortion referrals to pregnant women.
Pro-life states sued the Biden-Harris Administration's Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Xavier Becerra earlier this year, seeking to reinstate $4.5 million in family planning grants. The case was litigated in court, and ultimately the state's request for an injunction was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court
Denied Oklahoma's request indicates that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the motion.
background
The grant program is
case It was established in 1970 under Section 10 of the Public Health Service Act. Congress gave HHS the task of determining eligibility requirements for funding.
In 2021, the Biden-Harris HHS updated two conditions. First, family planning projects must offer pregnant women the opportunity to receive “neutral, fact-based information and non-prescriptive counseling” about available options, including abortion. Second, projects must provide referrals for all options when requested.
The following year, the Oklahoma State Department of Health was approved for funding from April 2022 to March 2023. But just a few months into his term, Oklahoma's abortion ban went into effect and the Supreme Court
Dobbs The ruling indicates that there is no right to abortion nationwide.
rear
DobbsThe Biden-Harris Department of Health and Human Services rushed to inform Oklahoma and other grant recipients that the Supreme Court decision does not relieve them from the requirement to continue offering abortions to pregnant women in order to receive federal funding.
Oklahoma has, in effect, told the federal government to back down and change its policy based on state law.
HHS rejected Oklahoma's changes and suggested the state could follow suit through other means, specifically by providing pregnant women with the phone number of an abortion referral hotline.
Oklahoma rejected the half-measures and stopped sharing information about the hotline, leading the Biden-Harris administration to end the funding, a strategy the state has previously pursued.
Tennessee.
“Such cuts to health services are detrimental to the public interest.”
Oklahoma challenged the ruling, and after a federal court declined to force the Biden-Harris administration to hand over the funds, the state appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which ruled 2-1 to allow HHS to continue withholding the funds.
argument
Oklahoma
attention in spite of Weldon Amendment Although it prohibits federal agencies and programs from “discriminating against any institution or individual health care provider because the provider does not provide, pay for, reimburse, or refer for abortions,” HHS stripped Oklahoma of all Title X funding for its refusal to provide abortion referrals after the state's historic abortion ban was reinstated in the 1990s. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization“
The state asked the Supreme Court to consider whether HHS had in fact violated the Weldon Amendment and therefore the Constitution's Spending Clause by mandating abortion referrals.
Oklahoma also argued that Congress' spending powers did not allow it to delegate eligibility requirements for grant funding to the Department of Health and Human Services.
Reported The New York Times.
According to According to SCOTUSblog, U.S. Attorney General Elizabeth Preloger, representing the Biden-Harris administration, told the Supreme Court justices that the Weldon Amendment was not violated because OSDH “is not protected.”
Preloger also suggested that the abortion referral requirement does not violate the Constitution's Spending Clause because Congress “routinely conditions the award of Federal funding on compliance with requirements contained in agency regulations, and this Court has repeatedly upheld such requirements.”
Representatives for the Biden-Harris administration also suggested to the justices that this was ultimately a dispute of “moderate practical interest,” despite Oklahoma positioning the fund as a vital part of the state's “healthcare frontline.”
Several pro-life and religious medical associations previously filed amicus curiae in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals:
stress The HHS rule “threatens to reduce the resources available to the public who seek fertility services, family planning information, and other health care services from health care professionals who share our beliefs about abortion and the sanctity of human life. Such reductions in health care services harm the public interest,” they warned.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censorship and sign up for our newsletter to receive stories like this directly to your inbox. Register here!
