During Wednesday's Supreme Court oral arguments for Medina v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Elena Kagan questioned an attorney on the obligation of access to Planned Parenthood.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00It's not any old obligation.
00:01I mean, you're absolutely right, of course,
00:03that not any old obligation would be enough here.
00:07It's an obligation that runs to the individual beneficiary
00:11and that concerns an individual beneficiary's entitlement
00:15to choose something.
00:16And once you're at that, you're at a right.
00:21And if the language in the statute
00:25said right, as it did in Talefsky,
00:28you would still say, oh, well, the state doesn't know
00:30that that right is enforceable.
00:33What this language does is the same thing
00:35that the rights language does.
00:37It says, you have an entitlement.
00:39It's your option to choose a doctor.
00:42Now, we've never said, oh, and the statute has to say,
00:46and this can be enforced in court.
00:49May I respond, Mr. Chief?
00:50Sure.
00:51Justice Kagan, what you said in Talefsky
00:53is that you need rights-creating language
00:55with an unmistakable focus on the benefited class.
00:58So the fact that you identify individuals and that they're
01:01This is an unmistakable focus on the benefited class.
01:04The benefited class is Medicaid beneficiaries
01:07who have the right to go see the doctor of their choice.
01:09That's what this provision is.
01:11But Justice Kagan, it's missing the connective tissue
01:14to the rights-creating language.
01:15You need clear rights-creating language
01:17that the beneficiaries are subject to
01:19and that is directed to the regulated entity here, a state.
01:22And all of that connective tissue
01:23is missing because there are no clearly rights-creating words
01:26in this statute.
01:27If you would lower the bar, those provisions
01:29that we mentioned in our brief are just the start.
01:31That's already 10% of Section 1396A.
01:35The atypical high bar that you articulated in Talefsky
01:38would be abandoned, and courts will continue discovering rights
01:41in all kinds of statutes.
01:42Thank you, counsel.
01:43Justice Thomas.