Betrayal: Brett Kavanaugh cast deciding Supreme Court vote enabling Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood

5 (100%) 2 votes

Et tu, Kavanaugh?

Medicaid is a government welfare program that provides health care services for “the poor”. Jointly funded by the states and the federal government, Medicaid is largely administered by the states. About 70 million people — one out of every five Americans — are enrolled in the program, including two million women who use Planned Parenthood clinics.

Planned Parenthood is America’s largest abortion provider.

Two states, Kansas and Louisiana, seek to exclude Planned Parenthood (PP) from their Medicaid “health care” providers, after a series of undercover videos show PP abortion clinics engaged in illegal sales of fetal tissue for allegedly medical research. In the words of Jeanne Mancini, the president of March for Life: “Abortion is not healthcare, it is a human rights abuse. Until Planned Parenthood ceases to perform abortions they should not receive any money from taxpayers.”

Kansas and Louisiana brought suit to in an effort to exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, but preserve their Medicaid funding. The cases are Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (17-1340) and Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast Inc. (17-1492). But their cases were tossed by lower courts.

Similar defunding laws in Arizona, Ohio, Texas, and Indiana have also been tossed by the lower courts. Only Arkansas’ law has been allowed to go into effect, but that is being challenged in the courts.

To quote Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri: (pp. 1-2)

Medicaid offers the States a bargain: Congress provides federal funds in exchange for the States’ agreement to spend them in accordance with congressionally imposed conditions…. When a state fails to comply with the terms of Medicaid, the statute provides one remedy: the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services may withhold funds from the state…. [T]he Tenth Circuit below held that §23(A) of the Medicaid Act…requires states to provide in their administrative plans the ability of eligible patients to obtain services from “any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required…who undertakes to provide him such services.” 42 U.S.C. §1396a(a)(23)(A). Although the Medicaid Act elsewhere grants a state substantial leeway in deciding when to exclude individual providers from the Medicaid program, see id. §1396a(p)(1), the Tenth Circuit’s decision permits patients to challenge those decisions in federal court….

Fox News reports that on Monday, December 10, 2018, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court declined to review the appeals from Kansas and Louisiana, effectively giving a victory to Planned Parenthood.

According to Supreme Court rules, 4 of the 9 justices must vote “yes” for the Court to accept a case (source: United States Courts). That means that the Court’s newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh, cast the deciding vote.

Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, crowed: “We are pleased that lower court rulings protecting patients remain in place. Every person has a fundamental right to health care, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much they earn.”

The three conservative justices who dissented are Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. They maintain the Supreme Court should get involved in the legal fight on states’ rights grounds. Justice Clarence Thomas said: “These cases are not about abortion rights. They are about private rights of action under the Medicaid Act. Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty.”

The six members voting to deny the petitions did not comment. They are the four “liberals” (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) and two other ostensibly conservative members—Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts.

During the Senate confirmation hearings on Kavanaugh, Planned Parenthood had threatened senators if they voted to confirm him to the Supreme Court. Planned Parenthood needn’t have bothered as Kavanaugh poses no threat to their funding and slaughter.

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
Advertisements
 

38 responses to “Betrayal: Brett Kavanaugh cast deciding Supreme Court vote enabling Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood

  1. Am I imagining things but has talk of impeachment of Kavanaugh by the dems disappeared because of his sinful decision?

     
  2. I tried telling people that the circus from the left regarding Kavanaugh was nothing but a gigantic psyops scam to get them to support him. I wanted to see Kavanaugh fail, just for different reasons than the left. Likewise, everybody supports everything Trump is doing, no matter how obviously it goes against our interests or what he promised. Trump is a circus to distract us while his boss Soros finishes taking down our count

     
  3. The lunatic liberal/Bolshevik DemocRats scream “Diversity” yet if one looks at their side of the Supreme Court one will see 3 confirmed AshkeNazis and 1 crypto-Sephardic. This is one of the best examples of the hypocrisy & lies of the Democrats on their anti-White/Christian “Diversity” mantra………..

     
  4. I want to make sure I understand the headline: “Brett Kavanaugh Casts the Deciding Supreme Court Vote.” And the vote count was 6 to 3. Now if Kavanaugh had voted otherwise, the vote count would have been 5 to 4 with the same results. I’m trying to understand how Kavanaugh’s vote was the deciding vote. Can anyone help? Could the headline be Fake News? Perhaps the headline should have read: “Brett Kavanaugh Casts Vote to Decline Review of Suit that Would have Stopped State Funding of Planned Parenthood in Two States.” Or is there some detail that I am missing?

     
  5. Nobody should be surprised. There were several reasons Kavanaugh was a questionable choice due to past activities (involvement with GWB, Patriot Act, Vince Foster cover-up). Many doubted he was ever a strict constructionist or that he would vote as hoped by Christians and conservatives. His support was solidified as a result of the “convenient,” cleverly planned charade provided by progressives.

     
    • I wasn’t gung-ho Kavanaugh, either. There was precious LITTLE TALK about ‘trivial things’ such as the Fourth Amendment, the PATRIOT Act, etc.

       
  6. I read your comment and could hear those same words coming out of my own mouth 35 years ago. In fact, I shamefully remember telling that to a group of women on a street corner who were trying to raise awareness about abortion. Needless to say, I don’t feel that way today. Without saying the obvious about its murder etc, my only question is, most cases are pregnancy by recreational sex. Why aren’t those men and women, boy and girls taking contraceptives? And if they don’t want to be responsible and take preventive measures then stop acting like animals, show some restraint and don’t mess around. Don’t enter the situation to begin with.

     
    • A valid argument,Pat,but it’s tough,these days,to argue against, “But it FEEEEEEELS SOOOO GOOOOOD!” Right and wrong have been replaced,Thanks to the “Party of Feeeelings”,with Feels Good or Not Fun.

       
  7. I cannot understand Kavanaugh’s reasoning, but it seems to me he was thinking along legalistic and procedural lines: Rather than look at the moral imperative ignited by this moral (and demographic) outrage, he seems to have reasoned along legalistic or procedural lines. In other words, “Should I vote to decide to confront the evil of abortion, an evil I myself am against?” or, “Should I vote whether or not this Court shall take this case?” So he voted for the latter. And for all we know, there may be good reason for doing so IN THIS CASE.
    But the end result is the same: Public Medicaid funding of abortion shall continue. And I find it particularly galling, for this reason: I am CERTAIN that Ginsberg and Sotomayor (at the least) would always vote in favor of abortion, regardless of the legalistic or philosophical subtleties involved, merely because they favor abortion as a rite.
    And the end result is the same TWICE OVER: Once again, God’s Will regarding this evil is once again thwarted. No Matter: “The end of this Battle has already been decided,” said John Paul II; the only question is WHEN—a matter known but to God Alone.

    SHAME on Kavanaugh!

     
  8. Now he can celebrate with a keg.

     
  9. Thank you to all you people who let the government get away with cold blooded murder in broad daylight, and were too chicken to speak up and call murder murder. Thank God Jesus didn’t chicken out. He could have said the hell with us. Now, good luck trying to stop murder of the unborn behind closed doors. You all botched it. I say we make a petition to dig up that jet that buried itself in Pennsylvania. It has to be there, our honest government said that is what happened to that plane. This isn’t Pearl Harbor. At least give these now skeletons a proper burial. Perhaps they might even find a box cutter. Kavenaugh is typical of all these losers. He just joined the John Roberts club.

     
    • The plane that was shot down by our Airforce. They made a nice little ‘let’s roll” fairy tale to help cover it up. Most people are so very gullible & brainwashed.

       
  10. Judas!
    I & all my friends were praying around the clock for this man to save him from the unjust abuse he was getting at the hands of vicious women making obvious false accusations & attacking him. God protected him & he was victorious.
    Now he’s turned around after being given the opportunity for these unborn babies right to be born & killed them…..& funded it!
    He wasn’t willing to protect the unborn babies & that was the sole reason he was granted the supreme course position.
    What a waste of time!
    He’s doomed!
    No more prayers for Kavenaugh!

     
  11. I guess the reasoning is that if funding PP, as the Republican Party did behind our backs, is effectively the will of the people in our democracy, then no one, including judges, can set himself above that will because of his moral or religious beliefs. As Scalia put it, “If the people, for example, want abortion, the state should permit abortion in a democracy.” This of course is utter nonsense since most Americans oppose abortion last I heard, and the fig leaf of “neutral law” that Kavanaugh may be relying on—I have no idea—can also readily be seen as nonsense if, instead of funding PP, the issue before the court had been funding a law forcing permanent sterilization on black women, even though that was one of PP’s first objectives. I don’t know what prompted Kavanaugh, but it reminds me of Mario Cuomo’s selling out Christ decades ago when he said that although he was “personally opposed” to abortion as a Catholic, as governor of NY he would enforce that law to the best of his ability—which has become the hypocritical excuse used by all the apostate Catholics in Congress since that time. Of course this only applies to laws repressing Christianity.

     
  12. I am wondering how the S.C. has so much power to begin with? Do we not have 3 co-equal Branches of Government? Or were those teachers in school who taught me that lying?

     
    • The Founders never said the 3 branches of the federal government are equal, whatever “equal” means. Their objective was to limit government power via the SEPARATION of that power into 3 branches, with each branch having its own functions and powers (the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution), but with some overlapping power. As an example, both the Executive and Legislative branches partake of legislative power: Congress makes laws, but the President has the power of veto. Congress also shares in some judicial power — that of impeachment.

      In this manner, the Founders hoped that jealously guarding their powers, the 3 branches would check and balance each other. In this way, government would be limited and constrained from becoming a behemoth that oppresses the people.

       
  13. Has ANY Conservative grabbed Kavanaugh by the collar,slammed him down into a chair and just asked him,point blank,”WTF,bud? Splain to me why’d you DO that? Did someone pay you off? Did someone threaten to kill YOU,or your FAMILY? Did you suddenly realize you’re REALLY a Democrat?”

     
  14. Looks like we have yet another jackass-in-an-elephant-suit SCOTUS “justice” on our hands.

    Can’t say I’m surprised.

    Good thing the SCOTUS isn’t the final word on anything, despite what the lefty “educators” have indoctrinated so many to believe.

     
  15. Hello, planned parenthood funded by Medicaid is for Americans with physical or mental disability.So, if government decides a mental behavior health patient would be delegated for health reasons and is pregnant woman. An arbortion could be formed, even if Woman wanted take baby until birth, the government through Medicaid would cover costs of abortion could be performed.

     
  16. I’ve been trying to get my head wrapped around this all day, and I have come to some conclusions as to why Kavanaugh voted as he did and why Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch voted as they did. I believe that Kavanaugh and the three dissenters ALL VOTED CORRECTLY even though they voted on opposite sides of the ruling to decline to accept the cases. My reasoning rests on several things.

    1. What does the law say?

    2. What do the Medicaid regulations say?

    3. What did the petitioners seek?

    4. What did the petitioners offer as a reason for defunding Planned Parenthood?

    5. Why were the petitioners’ reasons insufficient to get their case heard?

    Kavanaugh was stuck between a rock and a hard place. We need to remember that he is a texturalist and an originalist, which makes him a constitutional conservative in the of mode of Antonin Scalia. He therefore is bound by that judicial philosophy and will interpret cases, vote, and make rulings accordingly. He is, therefore bound by the law. So, number one, what does the law say? The law says, abortion on demand is legal, and no woman has to give a reason for butchering her own defenseless, innocent, genetically unique human being from the moment of conception child. The law says abortion is a medical procedure that cannot be prohibited, no matter how vile and murderous it may be.

    Number two is what do the Medicaid regulations say. They are quite clear, as outlined in Dr. Eowyn’s post: The Tenth Circuit held that §23(A) of the Medicaid Act…requires states to provide in their administrative plans the ability of eligible patients to obtain services from “any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required…who undertakes to provide him such services.” 42 U.S.C. §1396a(a)(23)(A).

    This brings me to number 3, what did the petitioners want? They wanted to defund a legal medical procedure that federal law and Medicaid regulations requires to be funded. That would be on a par with a state trying to defund the Mayo Clinic because it provides outrageously expensive heart transplants that only the rich can afford.

    As for number four: What did the petitioners offer as a reason for defunding Planned Parenthood? The petitioners noted that Panned Parenthood is not only in the child murder business, it also is in the illegal business of selling the body parts of the babies it has killed. In addition, they claimed that abortion was not healthcare, but rather a human right issue.

    And number 5, Why were the petitioners’ reasons insufficient to get their case heard? The answer, unfortunately, is simple. They were irrelevant. The defunding issue was not whether abortion is an abomination, which it certainly is, but about whether it is legal, which it is (God help us), and whether the law requires that it be funded under Medicaid regulations, which it does.

    I would suggest that Kavanaugh had no other choice but to rule as he did, in a clear cut obedience to the text and meaning of the law. Had he done otherwise, and ruled what his heart was most likely telling him to do , he would have ignored the law and would have been on the verge of legislating from the bench. And THAT is something we cannot allow.

    Now, the three Justices who voted no, did not really address the law. What they did is give an answer on how such petitioners can prevail in the future. It is really a brilliant idea. They suggested that the Supreme Court should get involved in the legal fight on states’ rights grounds. I believe such an approach would add a powerful tool to anti-abortion cases, in that it would take away much of the federal power that bullies individuals and which now protects such vile and evil institutions like Planned Parenthood from being held to account for perpetrating their and bloody holocaust of human babies.

     
    • None of us knows why Kavanaugh (or John Roberts) voted the way they did because the 6 justices who prevailed did not comment, unlike the 3 conservative justices who did explain their votes (via Clarence Thomas).

      Given Kavanaugh’s silence, I can only go by the company he keeps: the 4 Leftists (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) and the faux conservative John Roberts who actually voted for Obamacare by calling it a tax.

      I, for one, cannot imagine myself ever siding with the Gang of 4 on anything, for whatever contorted reason.

       
      • I agree wholeheartedly. I just want to believe that Kavanaugh is not a Jekyll and Hyde. If he is, then we are screwed. But his track record as a federal judge would seem to support his strict adherence to constitutional principles. Perhaps what appears to be his turncoat vote, is actually an attempt to not set a precedent in a case that, on the surface, would appear to be a loser. But we will never know, since no Justice on the NO side commented.

         
        • If he’s a “strict” constitutionalist, then he would vote in favor of SCOTUS taking the cases on the grounds of 10th Amendment states’ rights.

           
  17. You know, I write a very civil response to this. But strangely enough it doesnt show up here. I’m calling CENSORSHIP!!!
    once again!
    Shame on you!

     
    • New commenters must be approved (“moderated”) to prevent spam comments.
      Nor is FOTM, a privately-owned blog, under any obligation, legal or moral, to publish your or any one’s comments.
      For your verbal abuse, your future comments will not be published.

       
  18. Another color showing event, demonstrating that there isn’t really anyone in the government that can be counted on. You can’t drain the swamp from the government, when the government Is the swamp, as indicated by the repeated let downs and continued corruption, with only minor “appearance” concessions to keep people on the fence or in the camp of support, thinking that something is being done when it isn’t. What about epstein getting off on a “deal”, trump putting in acosta who had prior dealings with epstein? They’re still a bunch of satanist creeps, I think, and since the public cannot be relied upon to vote intelligently (much less so righteously) because society has been made stupid & willfully immoral, will vote similarly, and are highly subject to propaganda on top of that, what options exist for halting evil’s advance and turning back their vile efforts, especially if the vote system doesn’t work, and those in office cannot be swayed from their course of destruction & corruption?

     
  19. There was no explanation of why this decision was made.
    Many “experts” say it was because these cases did not get to the crux of the problem and the court has others that are more appropriate for consideration.

     
    • Since the Kavanaugh and the other 5 justices didn’t comment on their vote, how would the “experts” know? Years ago, I had stopped heeding what TV talking heads “experts” say. Their opinions are really no better than “no-name” FOTM readers and commenters. The only difference is that the “experts” get paid for bloviating their opinions.

       
  20. I’ve been following this for a while, trying to fully understand his decision. I don’t think he voted for “Planned Parenthood” giving them a “full green light”. It appears this involved 2 particular cases, which some said “did not warrant a SCOTUS hearing. Planned Parenthood performs murder for hire, of our most innocent “the unborn”. However, in deciding not to hear the 2 particular cases, in turn, gave PP the go ahead. I do not agree with the decision not to hear the cases, because it is about saving the lives of the unborn and not making the tax payers responsible through Medicaid. Sometimes “no decision” is the decision. At most, he was ineffective and passive, which we do not want on the SCOTUS. Never, would I support PP. I believe in “states rights” to not fund the killing of the unborn. The Federal Government has overreached its power. I’m very disappointed in Kavanaugh for not taking a strong stand against evil. Leeann

     
    • Well said, Leeann.
      Whatever Kavanaugh’s contorted reason(s) may be, they can’t supercede (1) the lives of innocent unborn humans; (2) states’ rights (are we not a FEDERAL republic?); and (3) pro-life taxpayers’ right not to be forced against their conscience to finance the killing of the unborn.

       
  21. Pingback: Democrats introduce House bill calling abortion a human right - Fellowship Of The Minds

  22. Pingback: Priorities: First order of business for Democrat House majority is abortion - Fellowship Of The Minds

  23. Pingback: Trump White House prepares for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's departure from Supreme Court - Fellowship Of The Minds

  24. Pingback: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pneumonia and will retire from Supreme Court this month - Fellowship Of The Minds

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.