The Supreme Court recently rejected Oklahoma’s request to reinstate federal funds. The decision was made without any explanation from the justices. Three justices indicated that they would have granted the state’s request, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch.
Oklahoma had lost over $4 million in federal funding for family planning. The dispute arose because Oklahoma laws now prevent abortion referrals, which are required under federal law.
The funding was part of Title X, a federal program that supports family planning services. Title X mandates that states offer abortion referrals if requested, which conflicted with Oklahoma’s laws.
This legal battle is influenced by the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which allowed states to enforce stricter abortion laws. Oklahoma’s law prohibits advising on or providing abortions, leading to the funding cut.
To avoid the funding loss, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) suggested that Oklahoma could give patients a hotline number instead. Oklahoma rejected this alternative, leading to the termination of their grant.
Oklahoma first went to federal courts, but both the district and appellate courts denied their request. These courts agreed with HHS that the state was not complying with federal funding rules.
Oklahoma argued that requiring abortion counseling violated the Constitution’s spending clause. The state claimed Title X did not clearly notify them of these federal requirements when they accepted the funding.
The state also argued that the Weldon Amendment, a federal law, protected them from having to refer patients for abortions. This amendment prohibits discrimination against healthcare providers who refuse to provide such referrals.
The Biden administration, represented by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, urged the Supreme Court to reject Oklahoma’s request. Prelogar argued that the case had minimal stakes since it only involved a single grant.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to reinstate the funds means Oklahoma will lose its Title X funding while the case continues in lower courts. The dispute highlights the ongoing tensions between state and federal laws on abortion.
