Killing babies in abortions is bad enough. But the highest court in Pennsylvania wants a lower court to look at forcing state residents to fund abortions with their tax dollars.
On Monday, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled that a lower court must address the challenge to the constitutionality of a longstanding pro-life state law limiting the use of Medicaid funds for abortions. This decision marks a significant triumph for the Planned Parenthood abortion biz and the operators of abortion companies who initiated the lawsuit.
In a 3-2 decision, the high court not only reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the case on procedural grounds but also set aside a 1985 state Supreme Court ruling that upheld a pro-life law restricting the use of state Medicaid funds for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life.
Alexis McGill Johnson, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, hailed the decision as a “landmark victory for reproductive freedom” in a statement.
The Pennsylvania high court made the absurd claim that somehow not forcing state residents to fund abortions with their own tax funds discriminate against women.
The majority of the high court, in a 219-page decision, emphasized that previous court decisions did not fully consider the extensive scope of state constitutional protections against discrimination, beyond what the federal constitution provides. The lower court is now tasked with reevaluating the case based on these guidelines. That almost guarantees the pro-life laws will be struck down.
“The vast majority of Pennsylvanians do not want to see their hard-earned tax dollars spent on abortion, which is the taking of an innocent, unrepeatable human life,” said Maria Gallagher, legislative director of the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, the Keystone State affiliate of National Right to Life.
“Research clearly indicates that, when taxpayer funding of abortions occurs, abortion totals skyrocket. More than 34,000 abortions took place in Pennsylvania in 2022, according to statistics from the PA Department of Health. That’s truly alarming,” Gallagher said.
“The women of the Commonwealth and their babies need comprehensive care and support, not a blank check for taxpayer-funded abortions,” Gallagher added.
Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.
Here’s more from a liberal media outlet:
In a 219-page opinion, Justice Christine Donohue ordered that the case, brought by seven reproductive health providers, be reargued in front of the state’s Commonwealth Court.
That court initially dismissed the case, which challenges a statute that prevents the state’s Medicaid program from paying for low-income people’s abortions in most situations, ruling that the providers lacked standing to challenge the law.
The high court unanimously upheld the law in 1985 following a previous challenge.
But in her opinion Monday, Donohue argued that the ruling should be revisited in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
“The government does not bear a constitutional obligation to provide medical care to the indigent, nor is the government required to financially support the exercise of a fundamental right, including a woman’s exercise of her right to reproductive autonomy,” Donohue wrote.
“However, once the government chooses to provide medical care for the indigent … the government is obligated to maintain neutrality so as not to intrude upon the constitutional right to full reproductive autonomy, which includes the right to terminate a pregnancy.”
Five justices on the seven-member court participated in the decision, and all issued separate opinions concurring or dissenting in part with Donohue.
Monday’s ruling sets the stage for the case to return to the high court. Justice Kevin Dougherty foreshadowed the possibility in a short concurring opinion, saying that “there is little doubt the issue eventually will make its way back to this Court.”
What will happen then is up in the air. Donouhue and Justice David Wecht agreed that the state constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment should be construed to protect the right to abortion. At least two members of the court — Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy and Chief Justice Debra Todd — did not agree with that particular argument.
Mundy in particular expressed her disagreement in a 24-page dissent, arguing that the court should have upheld its precedent.
“One may therefore wonder how the right to be let alone in making personal decisions can be transformed into the right to receive taxpayer money to fund one decision if the government funds a different decision,” Mundy wrote.
Two other justices, Kevin Brobson and Daniel McCaffery, did not participate in the case.
