The justices on the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case that would allow states to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion corporation.

It now gets an estimated $700 million in taxpayer money each year, which has prompted a variety of protests over the possibility that taxes are being used for abortion, or to support the company’s structure that promotes abortion.

Oral arguments were heard in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and concerns a decision by Gov. Henry McMaster, of South Carolina, to disqualify abortion providers from state Medicaid reimbursement programs.

It’s significant because a ruling on behalf of the state could open the door for other states to make the same move.

The Washington Examiner reported that the issue wasn’t clearly decided from comments made by the justices, as the leftists on the court clearly were advocating for Planned Parenthood, while others were harder to read.

“The future of state Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood remains uncertain following an intense oral argument session before the Supreme Court on Wednesday,” the report said.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and one woman, Julie Edwards, sued over the governor’s order, claiming the federal Medicaid statute guarantees access to “any qualified and willing provider.”

But the state has explained it retains the authority to determine what counts as “qualified.”

Much of the argument was over whether patients have a legal standing to sue because they are not allowed to pick one “provider” when a multitude of others are available.

Lawyer John Bursch, arguing for the state, explained the Medicaid Act does not create a private right of action, and the responsibility for enforcement rests with the Department of Health and Human Serivces.

Abortion lawyer Nicole Saharsky claimed Medicaid provides “a very individual choice.”

Bursch told reporters outside the court that he was confident in the case.

“The Justices seemed to get the point that we were making, which is that Congress creates rights enforceable in federal court only when it uses clear, explicit language in the statute, and that provision that we’re talking about today simply doesn’t have that,” said Bursch.

He suggested there were several justices open to the state’s arguments.

Elena Kagan, one of the leftist justices, claimed that the state is required to ensure people “have a right to choose their doctor.”

A decision could come as early as June.

The federal Hyde Amendment already bars direct federal funding of abortions, but critics note any government cash frees up the other cash abortionists have for abortion.

Outside the Supreme Court for arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood, we have dueling demonstrations. One that’s in favor of defending and the other defunding the group.

The defend side is quite fiery and speech-driven, while the defund side is playing soft Christian music. pic.twitter.com/rmr8kzTgpI

— Kaelan Deese (@KaelanDC) April 2, 2025

The legal team at Liberty Counsel, which has worked on a multitude of cases involving tax funding for abortion, said states are charged with protecting consumers from harm, and “also have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not funneled to repeat offenders and bad actors.”

The organization pointed out that the Center for Medical Progress, which involved client Sandra Merritt, made undercover videos that “exposed shocking abuses against women and children and clear violations of multiple state and federal laws.” One of those videos showed an abortionist insisting on more money for the body parts of unborn children, because, “I want a Lamborghini.”

It noted South Carolina also approved a Heartbeat Law, which protects unborn children from abortion after six weeks.