90 Members of Congress State Support of State Laws Defunding Planned Parenthood

U.S. Senators Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) joined U.S. Senator Roger Wicker is submitting an amicus brief written by attorneys asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast v. Gee. A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case currently prohibits states, including Mississippi, from eliminating taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood through Medicaid.

“States should be able to fund health centers that provide the best and most comprehensive care, without being forced to use taxpayer money for organizations that provide abortions, like Planned Parenthood,” Ernst said. “It is critical the Supreme Court take up this case and ensure rulings from a Court of Appeals do not infringe upon a state’s right to provide quality care to women, while also protecting our most vulnerable: the unborn.”

“Congress gave states broad authority to determine which organizations can participate in their Medicaid programs,” Wicker said. “This ruling undermines congressional intent and state laws to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. I hope the Supreme Court will take up this case and rule in favor of states’ rights and the unborn.”

Twenty-two additional U.S. Senators along with Ernst and Grassley signed the amicus brief: Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), John Kennedy (R-Louisiana), John Cornyn (R-Texas)., Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Roy Blunt (R-Missouri), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), James Risch (R-Idaho), and Steve Daines (R-Montana).

65 additional members of the U.S. House joined King signing the amicus brief including Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana), Clay Higgins (R-Louisiana), Ralph Abraham (R-Louisiana), Garret Graves (R-Louisiana), Gregg Harper (R-Mississippi), Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Mike Conaway (R-Texas), Bill Flores (R-Texas), Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (R-Texas), Robert B. Aderholt (R-Alabama), Andy Biggs (R-Arizona), Doug LaMalfa (R-California), Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado), Daniel Webster (R-Florida), Drew Ferguson (R-Georgia), Barry Loudermilk (R-Georgia), Randy Hultgren (R-Illinois), Trent Kelly (R-Mississippi), Steven Palazzo (R-Mississippi), Sam Johnson (R-Texas), Joe Barton (R-Texas), Randy Weber (R-Texas), Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), Pete Olson (R-Texas), Brian Babin (R-Texas), Paul Gosar (R-Arizona), Debbie Lesko (R-Arizona), Tom McClintock (R-California), Ted Yoho (R-Florida), Gus Bilirakis (R-Florida), Jody Hice (R-Georgia), Jim Banks (R-Indiana), Todd Rokita (R-Indiana), Andy Harris (R-Maryland), Ann Wagner (R-Missouri), Walter B. Jones (R-North Carolina), David Rouzer (R-North Carolina), Robert Pittenger (R-North Carolina), Tedd Budd (R-North Carolina), Christopher H. Smith (R-New Jersey), Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), Bob Latta (R-Ohio), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), Steve Russell (R-Oklahoma), Ralph Norman (R-South Carolina), Diane Black (R-Tennessee), Glenn Grothman (R-Wisconsin), Andy Barr (R-Kentucky), Bill Huizenga (R-Michigan), Vicky Hartzler (R-Missouri), Mark Walker (R-North Carolina), Richard Hudson (R-North Carolina), Mark Meadows (R-North Carolina), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Steve Pearce (R-New Mexico), Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma), Scott Perry (R-Pennsylvania), Phil Roe (R-Tennessee), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), and Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming).

In the amicus brief, members of Congress challenge the Fifth Circuit’s ruling based on their interpretation of congressional intent in the Medicaid Act and state sovereignty in granting Medicaid provider status. They argue the Supreme Court should hear the case because circuit courts have offered contradictory opinions in similar cases.

Read the brief below: