The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Oklahoma’s bid to restore a $4.5 million federal grant for family planning services.
The grant had been rescinded by the White House because Oklahoma refused to provide pregnant patients with information on abortion options, a requirement for receiving federal funding.
Conservative Justices Divided in 6-3 Decision
The court’s 6-3 decision revealed a split among the conservative justices.
According to the court’s order, Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas supported Oklahoma’s position, but the remaining justices declined to intervene.
Legal Battles Emerge Nationwide Following Roe v. Wade Overturn
This case is one of many legal battles that have emerged across the U.S. over abortion restrictions and federal funding.
These disputes have intensified since the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, which allowed several Republican-led states to impose sweeping abortion bans.
Oklahoma Challenges Title X Requirements
Federal regulations under the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) stipulate that family planning clinics cannot use Title X funds for abortion services.
However, clinics must still provide patients with information about abortion upon request. Oklahoma argued that its clinics were unable to comply due to state laws making it illegal to advise or perform abortions.
Oklahoma’s Strict Abortion Laws Lead to Lawsuit
Oklahoma’s abortion laws are among the most restrictive in the country, permitting the procedure only when the mother’s life is at risk.
Earlier this year, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Oklahoma’s lawsuit challenging these federal regulations.
Biden Administration Offers Compromise, Oklahoma Refuses
In response to Oklahoma’s refusal to provide abortion information, the Biden administration offered a compromise. They suggested that physicians could refer patients to a national hotline for abortion information.
However, Oklahoma officials rejected this accommodation, maintaining their stance against any involvement in abortion discussions.
Oklahoma Joins Multistate Lawsuit to Reinstate Trump-Era Rules
Oklahoma is also part of a broader, multistate lawsuit aiming to restore rules enacted during the Trump administration. These rules had prohibited Title X recipients from discussing or referring patients for abortion services.
President Joe Biden reversed this policy in 2021, shifting the stance on abortion counseling depending on the current administration.
Oklahoma Attorney General Responds to Supreme Court Decision
Following the Supreme Court’s rejection, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond expressed disappointment.
Leslie Berger, the press secretary for Drummond’s office, remarked, “While the denial is obviously disappointing, Attorney General [Gentner] Drummond is pleased that three Supreme Court justices were willing to step in and stop the Biden Administration’s lawless overreach at this preliminary juncture.”
Tennessee Files Similar Lawsuit Challenging Title X Compliance
Tennessee has also filed a similar lawsuit against the federal government, echoing Oklahoma’s arguments.
Tennessee claims its family planning providers cannot adhere to Title X regulations due to the state’s abortion restrictions, which ban the procedure in nearly all circumstances.
Court Rejects Tennessee’s Lawsuit, Citing Federal Guidelines
Last week, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Tennessee’s lawsuit.
The court ruled that Tennessee’s abortion laws could not “dictate eligibility requirements” for federal Title X funding, leaving the state’s argument without legal backing.
Tennessee’s Legal Challenge Expected to Continue
Despite the ruling, Tennessee’s case is expected to proceed in lower courts.
Both Oklahoma and Tennessee’s legal challenges reflect the ongoing friction between state abortion laws and federal family planning regulations.
Broader Implications for Abortion Access in the U.S.
As these cases continue to unfold, they highlight the shifting legal landscape surrounding abortion access in the U.S.
The outcomes of these legal battles will likely have significant implications for how states navigate the intersection of federal funding and restrictive abortion laws.
