The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Oklahoma’s request to reinstate over $4 million in federal funding for family-planning projects amid the state’s ongoing legal challenge over abortion referrals. The decision, issued without explanation, saw Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissenting in favor of the state. At the heart of the dispute is the federal requirement under Title X of the Public Health Service Act of 1970 for states to provide abortion counseling and referrals, a provision that directly conflicts with Oklahoma law.
The legal battle stems from a Title X mandate that obligates family-planning projects to offer counseling on prenatal care, adoption, and abortion, alongside referrals for those services if needed. Since Oklahoma law now prohibits advising on abortion except to save the life of the mother, the state’s compliance with Title X became untenable. Compounding the issue was the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which revived stringent state laws on abortion.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed an alternative that Oklahoma could provide a national hotline number instead of direct referrals. When Oklahoma rejected this compromise, HHS terminated the state’s grant, leading to a legal challenge. Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, upheld HHS’s decision, prompting Oklahoma to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
Oklahoma argued that the Title X requirements violate the Constitution’s spending clause and the federal Weldon Amendment, which protects healthcare providers from being compelled to refer for abortions. However, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar countered that such requirements are consistent with Congressional powers and previous court rulings. Additionally, she argued that the Weldon Amendment does not apply to state agencies like Oklahoma’s health department, and pointed out the modest practical stakes involved, portraying the issue as a single, discretionary grant.
In contrast, Oklahoma emphasized the critical role of county health departments in delivering care and the detrimental impact of losing Title X funds. The state’s plea to the Supreme Court was part of a broader argument that similar cases, such as Tennessee’s recent failed attempt to secure $7 million in Title X funding, substantiate its claims and need for relief.
For more detailed information, refer to the original reporting on SCOTUSblog.