On Monday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in a 3-2 decision to remand a constitutional abortion coverage question to the Commonwealth Court. The ruling concluded that the Pennsylvania Constitution secures the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy, encompassing a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion or carry a pregnancy to term.
The dispute arises from the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act‘s provision, creating a classification between pregnant women on Medicaid who wish to have an abortion and those who wish to carry their pregnancy to term. The court reasoned that once the government provides medical care to the indigent, it is subsequently obligated to maintain neutrality to avoid infringing on the constitutional right to full reproductive autonomy.
Under the 1982 Abortion Control Act, Medicaid, the government insurance plan for low-income individuals, denies coverage for abortions except in instances of incest or rape. Consequently, women who choose to have an abortion do not receive coverage under Medicaid, while those who opt to carry a pregnancy to term do. Despite this, the coverage exclusion was upheld in 1985 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Fischer v. Department of Public Welfare.
Revisiting this precedent, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) argued that Fischer was binding and should still apply. However, the court overruled Fischer’s holding, stating that the coverage exclusion contained a “sex-based distinction” that is “presumptively unconstitutional.”
Providers challenging the law at issue argued that the broader rights of the Equal Protection Clause make the law unconstitutional – a point of view which the court ultimately agreed with. The court noted that “Section 26 of our Charter afford broader protections than the federal Equal Protection Clause.”
The court did not definitively resolve whether the Coverage Exclusion would be upheld or struck down. That question has been left for the Commonwealth Court to decide, determining whether the abortion coverage exclusion is a “compelling state interest” and if there are “no less intrusive methods available to support the expressed policy.”
For more detailed information on this decision, you can visit the original article here.