Pennsylvania court rules taxpayers must fund abortions in the state

Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Court ruled Monday that a state ban on using public funds for abortion is unconstitutional. The ruling, which established that the state's constitution contains a so-called 'right' to abortion, could also jeopardize the state's current pro-life safeguards.

Key Takeaways:

• In a 4-3 ruling, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that the state's ban on taxpayer-funded abortion is unconstitutional.

• The ruling claims there is a 'right' to abortion in the state's constitution.

• Pro-lifers warn that this ruling could pave the way for the erosion of other pro-life safeguards.

• Attorney General Dave Sunday may decide to appeal this decision to the state's Supreme Court.

The Details:

In their 4-3 ruling, justices determined that Pennsylvania's constitution includes a 'right' to abortion, and that, therefore, a 1982 state ban on Medicaid-funded abortions is unconstitutional.

The ruling was the result of a lawsuit filed by Allegheny Reproductive Health Center and Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, which financially profit from abortion.

In writing the majority opinion, Judge Matthew S. Wolf referenced the state's Equal Rights Amendment, which he said "guarantees a fundamental right to reproductive autonomy." That "right" means the state's Medicaid program must cover abortion costs.

“Recognizing the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy is an initial analytical step, but it then requires the proper level of scrutiny be applied to the governmental action,” Wolf wrote.

“We conclude that the coverage exclusion violates the Equal Rights Amendment and the equal protection provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution, beyond any genuine dispute of fact, and thus we grant providers’ application for a summary relief.”

JuristNews reported:

Because the statute infringed on a fundamental right held only by women, the ban violated equal protection provisions of the state Constitution.

The court also granted summary judgment based on the state’s Equal Rights Amendment, which prohibits sex-based discrimination specifically. The court recounted recent state precedent which dictates that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy is a sex-based classification. As such, the block on Medicaid funds, targeting only people who are pregnant, violates the amendment.

According to WHYY, "Wolf was joined by Democrats Michael Wojcik and Lori A. Dumas, as well as Republican Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer."

Judges Patricia A. McCullough, Anne E. Covey, and Stacy Wallace dissented from the ruling.

“I simply cannot recall another case in which this court has decided issues of such profound public importance in this kind of summary, we-believe-you-if-you-say-so fashion that does anything but give ‘full notice to the bench, bar, and public,’” Judge McCullough wrote in the dissent. “Not a single aggrieved individual has come forward as a petitioning party alleging that she has been ‘coerced’ into doing anything because she did not have access to Pennsylvania taxpayer dollars to pay for an abortion.”

“I am not convinced that a right to reproductive autonomy or anything like it exists in the Pennsylvania Constitution to afford anyone a constitutional right to obtain an abortion,” she added.

JuristNews detailed:

The decision comes on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The case previously went to the state high court in 2024, when the Commonwealth Court originally ruled against the abortion care providers. The Commonwealth Court at the time was bound by precedent dictating that classifications on the basis of pregnancy were not sex-based classifications. The state Supreme Court overturned that precedent and returned the case to the Commonwealth Court to decide the case under the new precedent.

Only a plurality of justices on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, found reproductive autonomy to be a fundamental right. Now on remand, the Commonwealth Court adopted the plurality’s reasoning and held, now as a binding decision in the case, that this bodily autonomy is fundamental.

The ruling starkly contrasts with developing federal rules related to abortion rights. In 2022, the US Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization rejected contentions that reproductive freedom was either a fundamental right or protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. The Commonwealth Court noted that the Pennsylvania Constitution is distinct from the federal constitution and extends protections under state law where federal law does not.

What We're Hearing:

Unsurprisingly, abortion advocates are delighted with the court's ruling, which will undoubtedly increase abortions in the state.

"I've long opposed this unconstitutional ban, and as Governor, I did not defend it — because a woman's ability to access reproductive care should never be determined by her income," Governor Josh Shapiro wrote on X.

Stephanie Phillips, president & CEO of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania, claimed the ruling "righted a historic wrong."

“Here at PPWP, we have been opposed to the PA Medicaid abortion ban from the start. We have seen, firsthand, the harm it has caused to pregnant Pennsylvanians and are heartened to see the Court make a decision with the well-being of the people in mind, instead of the interests of political extremists,” she said.

Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, lamented the ruling, saying:

“Taxpayers now in Pennsylvania will have no choice under this court ruling to fund abortions. And there are many, many millions of Pennsylvanians who think abortion is wrong. It's the taking of an innocent human life and to force taxpayers who conscientiously object to abortion to then fund it is just plain wrong.”

The Big Picture:

Pro-lifers are also warning that the ruling will likely have broader implications on all pro-life laws, including current parental consent laws and other safeguards.

“If this ruling stands, it will invite attacks on every remaining pro-life safeguard that has been put into law by lawmakers at the behest to the people of Pennsylvania over decades," Geer said.

"The court didn't need to create a sweeping 'right' to reproductive autonomy to resolve this case. And it shouldn't have. By doing so, it is now forcing all Pennsylvanians to subsidize elective abortions and threatening commonsense safeguards," added Randall Wegner, Chief Counsel of Independence Law Center.

What's Next:

According to WJAC, it is now up to Republican Attorney General Dave Sunday to decide whether or not to appeal the ruling to the state's Supreme Court.