SCOTUS lets Biden-Harris admin continue denying federal funds to Oklahoma because it won't refer mothers for abortion
The Biden-Harris administration has withheld millions of dollars in federal funds from Oklahoma over its refusal to provide abortion referrals to pregnant women. The pro-life state sued the Biden-Harris Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary, Xavier Becerra, earlier this year, seeking a reinstatement of over $4.5 million in family-planning grants. The case was kicked up through the courts until ultimately the state's application for writ of injunction went before the U.S. Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court court denied Oklahoma's request, indicating that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the application. Background The grant program at the heart of the case was established in 1970 under Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Congress tasked the HHS with determining the eligibility requirements for the funds. In 2021, the Biden-Harris HHS renewed two conditions: first, that family-planning projects must provide pregnant women with the opportunity to receive "neutral, factual information and nondirective counseling" regarding possible options, including abortion. Second, projects had to provide a referral regarding all options when requested. The following year, the Oklahoma State Department of Health was approved for one such grant — from April 2022 to March 2023. However, just months into the term, Oklahoma's abortion ban took effect, and the Supreme Court issued its Dobbs ruling, indicating there is no nationwide right to an abortion. After Dobbs, the Biden-Harris HHS rushed to inform Oklahoma and other grant recipients that the high court's decision would not free them from their supposed obligation to continue referring pregnant women for abortion in order to receive the federal grant money. Oklahoma effectively told the federal government to pound sand, changing its policies on the basis of state law. The HHS rejected Oklahoma's changes and suggested the state could comply by other means; namely, by providing pregnant women with the phone number for a glorified abortion referral hotline. Oklahoma rejected that half-measure and stopped sharing information about the hotline, prompting the Biden-Harris administration to terminate the grant — a strategy it has pursued also with Tennessee. 'Diminishing healthcare services in this way harms the public interest.' Oklahoma challenged the decision. When a federal judge declined to compel the Biden-Harris administration to cough up the money, Oklahoma appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which ruled 2-1 to allow the HHS to continue withholding the money. Arguments Oklahoma noted that despite the Weldon Amendment — which bars federal agencies and programs from subjecting "any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions" — the HHS stripped it of all Title X funds because its OSDH "declined to refer for abortions after Oklahoma's historic abortion prohibition was revitalized in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization." The state asked the high court to consider whether the HHS had indeed violated the Weldon Amendment as well as whether it was violating the Constitution's spending clause by requiring abortion referrals. Oklahoma also argued that Congress' spending power precluded it from delegating the grant eligibility requirements to the HHS, reported the New York Times. According to SCOTUSblog, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who represented the Biden-Harris administration, told Supreme Court justices that the Weldon Amendment has not been violated because the OSDH is "not protected" under the amendment. Prelogar also suggested that the requirement for abortion referrals did not violate the Constitution's spending clause because Congress "routinely conditions federal grants on compliance with requirements contained in agency regulations, and this Court has repeatedly upheld such requirements." The Biden-Harris administration's representative further suggested to the justices that contrary to Oklahoma's characterization of the funds as a critical "part of the frontline of health care" in the state, this was ultimately a dispute with "modest practical stakes." Several pro-life and religious medical associations who previously filed an amicus curiae with the 10th Circuit, stressed that the HHS' rule "threatens to reduce the resources available to members of the public who seek fertility services, family-planning information, and other medical services from healthcare professionals who share their beliefs about abortion and the sanctity of human life. Diminishing healthcare services in this way harms the public interest." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The Biden-Harris administration has withheld millions of dollars in federal funds from Oklahoma over its refusal to provide abortion referrals to pregnant women.
The pro-life state sued the Biden-Harris Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary, Xavier Becerra, earlier this year, seeking a reinstatement of over $4.5 million in family-planning grants. The case was kicked up through the courts until ultimately the state's application for writ of injunction went before the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court court denied Oklahoma's request, indicating that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the application.
Background
The grant program at the heart of the case was established in 1970 under Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Congress tasked the HHS with determining the eligibility requirements for the funds.
In 2021, the Biden-Harris HHS renewed two conditions: first, that family-planning projects must provide pregnant women with the opportunity to receive "neutral, factual information and nondirective counseling" regarding possible options, including abortion. Second, projects had to provide a referral regarding all options when requested.
The following year, the Oklahoma State Department of Health was approved for one such grant — from April 2022 to March 2023. However, just months into the term, Oklahoma's abortion ban took effect, and the Supreme Court issued its Dobbs ruling, indicating there is no nationwide right to an abortion.
After Dobbs, the Biden-Harris HHS rushed to inform Oklahoma and other grant recipients that the high court's decision would not free them from their supposed obligation to continue referring pregnant women for abortion in order to receive the federal grant money.
Oklahoma effectively told the federal government to pound sand, changing its policies on the basis of state law.
The HHS rejected Oklahoma's changes and suggested the state could comply by other means; namely, by providing pregnant women with the phone number for a glorified abortion referral hotline.
Oklahoma rejected that half-measure and stopped sharing information about the hotline, prompting the Biden-Harris administration to terminate the grant — a strategy it has pursued also with Tennessee.
'Diminishing healthcare services in this way harms the public interest.'
Oklahoma challenged the decision. When a federal judge declined to compel the Biden-Harris administration to cough up the money, Oklahoma appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, which ruled 2-1 to allow the HHS to continue withholding the money.
Arguments
Oklahoma noted that despite the Weldon Amendment — which bars federal agencies and programs from subjecting "any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions" — the HHS stripped it of all Title X funds because its OSDH "declined to refer for abortions after Oklahoma's historic abortion prohibition was revitalized in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization."
The state asked the high court to consider whether the HHS had indeed violated the Weldon Amendment as well as whether it was violating the Constitution's spending clause by requiring abortion referrals.
Oklahoma also argued that Congress' spending power precluded it from delegating the grant eligibility requirements to the HHS, reported the New York Times.
According to SCOTUSblog, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who represented the Biden-Harris administration, told Supreme Court justices that the Weldon Amendment has not been violated because the OSDH is "not protected" under the amendment.
Prelogar also suggested that the requirement for abortion referrals did not violate the Constitution's spending clause because Congress "routinely conditions federal grants on compliance with requirements contained in agency regulations, and this Court has repeatedly upheld such requirements."
The Biden-Harris administration's representative further suggested to the justices that contrary to Oklahoma's characterization of the funds as a critical "part of the frontline of health care" in the state, this was ultimately a dispute with "modest practical stakes."
Several pro-life and religious medical associations who previously filed an amicus curiae with the 10th Circuit, stressed that the HHS' rule "threatens to reduce the resources available to members of the public who seek fertility services, family-planning information, and other medical services from healthcare professionals who share their beliefs about abortion and the sanctity of human life. Diminishing healthcare services in this way harms the public interest."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Originally Published at Daily Wire, World Net Daily, or The Blaze
What's Your Reaction?
