最高法院以6比3裁定南卡罗来纳州可将计划生育组织排除出医疗补助
2025年6月26日，美国最高法院以6比3裁定，南卡罗来纳州把计划生育组织排除出州医疗补助（Medicaid）计划的做法，患者无权依据联邦法律起诉挑战。案件起于南卡罗来纳州里奇兰县 Columbia 的州政府：2018年，州长 Henry McMaster 下令州卫生与公众服务部，将提供堕胎服务的诊所认定为不合资格，并当即终止其医疗补助参与资格。
在该州设有两家诊所的计划生育组织大西洋南部分部（Planned Parenthood South Atlantic）与患者 Julie Edwards 随后起诉州官员，援引《医疗补助法》的「任一合格提供者」条款，主张患者有权选择任何合格的提供者获得服务。地区法院与联邦第四巡回上诉法院都判原告胜诉，并禁止州政府执行排除决定。
大法官 Neil Gorsuch 撰写的多数意见说，要让一项联邦拨款法律产生可由个人起诉执行的权利，法律文本必须使用清楚明确的权利创设语言，并明确聚焦于个人；「任一合格提供者」条款没有达到这一标准，因此不产生可依《美国法典》第42编第1983条起诉的个人权利，第四巡回的判决被推翻。
多数意见由首席大法官 John Roberts 与大法官 Clarence Thomas、Samuel Alito、Brett Kavanaugh、Amy Coney Barrett 加入，Thomas 另有协同意见。大法官 Ketanji Brown Jackson 撰写异议意见，Sonia Sotomayor 与 Elena Kagan 加入，她主张该条款的表述不应成为患者维护自身选择权的障碍。
本案案号 23-1275。判决的直接后果是，南卡罗来纳州可以维持对计划生育组织的排除；多个州此前也曾试图把该组织排除出本州医疗补助，其执行情况今后将更多取决于各州政府与联邦政府之间的拨款关系，而不是患者个人诉讼。
（来源：美国最高法院）
Supreme Court Rules South Carolina Can Exclude Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, 6-3
On June 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that a Medicaid patient may not sue to challenge South Carolina's exclusion of Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid program. The case began with the state government in Columbia, Richland County, South Carolina: in 2018, Governor Henry McMaster ordered the state Department of Health and Human Services to deem clinics that provide abortion services unqualified, and to terminate their Medicaid participation.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which operates two clinics in the state, and patient Julie Edwards sued state officials under the Medicaid Act's any-qualified-provider provision, which provides that eligible individuals may obtain services from any provider qualified to perform them. The district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled for the plaintiffs and enjoined the exclusion.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that for a federal spending statute to confer a right enforceable by private suit, its text must use clear and unambiguous rights-creating language with an unmistakable focus on the individual benefited. The any-qualified-provider provision, 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(23)(A), does not meet that test, the Court held, so it creates no individual right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the Fourth Circuit's judgment was reversed.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority, and Thomas also wrote a concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, arguing that the provision's wording should not bar patients from defending their choice of provider.
The case is Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, No. 23-1275. As a direct result, South Carolina may keep Planned Parenthood excluded from its Medicaid program; a number of other states have previously sought to exclude the organization from their Medicaid programs, and those efforts will now turn more on the funding relationship between state and federal governments than on suits by individual patients.
(Source: Supreme Court of the United States)
来源：美国最高法院
发布：GSM·美国（发布链接）
图片来源：图：位于 Columbia 的南卡罗来纳州议会大厦，本案起于该州州政府将计划生育组织排除出州医疗补助的决定。w_lemay 摄，CC BY-SA 2.0，经 Wikimedia Commons。 / Photo: The South Carolina State House in Columbia; the case began with the state government's decision to exclude Planned Parenthood from the state Medicaid program. Photo by w_lemay, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
GSM Global · 本篇英文版 English edition of this story
