Staff Reports
The Biden-Harris administration is doubling down on its obsession with abortion, making it more evident than ever that when it comes to pregnancy and health care, mothers and babies take a backseat to their reproductive agenda. This latest episode involves Oklahoma, which learned the hard way that failing to adhere to federal abortion mandates could lead to a serious loss of funds. That’s right—those who don’t toe the party line may find their wallets lighter, as the administration isn’t shy about wielding its financial muscle to punish states that refuse to comply.
The Supreme Court, unfortunately, seems to be playing a game of “let’s be nice” with the current regime, as it recently opted not to restore a $4.5 million family planning grant that the administration blocked due to Oklahoma’s strict anti-abortion stance. Only three of the court’s conservative justices showed any inclination to support Oklahoma’s bid to fight back, leaving the state high and dry and signaling a disheartening start to their defense of state sovereignty.
Over public dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, #SCOTUS *rejects* Oklahoma’s request to continue receiving federal Title X funds despite its refusal to publicize a required national call-in number for abortion counseling. pic.twitter.com/AillqrZzDc
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 3, 2024
The crux of the issue lies in Title X of the Public Health Service Act, established back in 1970. This piece of legislation supposedly provides states funding for family planning services, but here’s the kicker: to qualify for those funds, states are required to play along and provide counseling and referrals for services like abortion. Following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision—which allowed states to regain control over abortion regulations—Oklahoma decided enough was enough and took a stand. It implemented strict abortion laws, which essentially placed the kiss of death on any counseling or referrals for the procedure.
In an apparent attempt at compromise, the Department of Health and Human Services floated the idea of allowing Oklahoma to give women a national abortion hotline rather than direct counseling. However, Oklahoma was quick to reject this half-hearted solution, bluntly pointing out that it still violated state law. The federal government, undeterred, yanked the grant, prompting Oklahoma to kick up some dust by filing a lawsuit, insisting that HHS was overstepping its boundaries.
Despite the clear misalignment of the administration’s actions with the rule of law, a district court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with HHS, igniting Oklahoma’s determination to compel the Supreme Court to intervene. However, that intervention never materialized; the high court denied the state’s request in a rather unceremonious fashion, leaving many to wonder just where the judicial backing for state rights went. Interestingly, while the Supreme Court opted to stay quiet on Oklahoma, it was brought into a similar situation in Tennessee, where that state is also facing the withdrawal of a hefty $7 million grant over its refusal to comply with federal abortion mandates. Whether Tennessee will find its voice in the Supreme Court after Oklahoma’s brush with judicial silence remains an open question.
