Kavanaugh sides with liberal justices in decision that allows Planned Parenthood to keep funding

Despite the off-the-chain fear mongering by liberals about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh being a “disaster” for women’s rights and a threat to abortion rights, the newly appointed justice sided with the liberal wing of the high court in declining to hear a case that may have resulted in Planned Parenthood being defunded at the state level.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with Kavanaugh in siding with the four liberal justices in declining to hear cases in which Louisiana and Kansas sought to stop the nation’s largest abortion provider from receiving Medicaid funding, according to the Washington Examiner.

Planned Parenthood will continue to participate in the program in the states as a result of Monday’s decision. Making Kavanaugh’s vote all the more important, only four justices are needed to agree to grant a hearing on a case.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented, saying they believe the court did not get involved because the issue of abortion was at play, The Examiner reported.

“What explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood,’”  Thomas wrote.

He continued:

“That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion. It is true that these particular cases arose after several States alleged that Planned Parenthood affiliates had, among other things, engaged in ‘the illegal sale of fetal organs’ and ‘fraudulent billing practices,’ and thus removed Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider. […]

“But these cases are not about abortion rights. They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Resolving the question presented here would not even affect Planned Parenthood’s ability to challenge the States’ decisions; it concerns only the rights of individual Medicaid patients to bring their own suits.”


Thomas argued that the court had a duty to resolve that question.

“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas added. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”

With liberal protesters trying to turn Kavanaugh’s appointment into a battle over Roe v. Wade, the early results suggest it was much ado about nothing — then again, that’s an accurate assessment of most of their efforts.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Tom Tillison


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.


Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!

Latest Articles