Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday appealed a Commonwealth Court ruling on Tuesday to the state’s Supreme Court, seeking to reverse a decision that overturned a state ban on Medicaid funding being used for abortions.
In a statement to FOX43, the Office of the Attorney General said it has “a statutory obligation to defend the Commonwealth’s laws, and our notice of appeal fulfills that duty with regards to this statute.”
“My responsibility as Attorney General is to defend the rule of law and defend statutes without interference of personal opinion or political posturing,” Sunday said in a statement.
The move drew criticism from Planned Parenthood PA, which called Sunday’s action cruel.
“It’s clear that Dave Sunday wants to play politics with abortion care,” the organization said in a statement on Wednesday. “Every day that passes while people are unable to access that critical care with their Medicaid coverage is on him. Defending discrimination in our state constitution is not only cruel; it goes against what the majority of Pennsylvanians want and what our courts have decided.”
The case, Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, began when a group of healthcare providers sued to challenge a state ban on Medicaid funding for abortions in 2019. That case was dismissed in 2020 for lacking standing, but that ruling was reversed in 2024 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the petitioners had standing based on the state constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which bans discrimination on the basis of sex. It then returned the case to the lower court to decide whether the Medicaid coverage exclusion for abortion was unconstitutional.
The Pennsylvania Department of Human Services declined to defend the statute, which led to the Attorney General’s office intervening in the case last year, prior to oral arguments.
Last month, the Commonwealth Court ruled in a 4–3 decision that the exclusion did violate the ERA and the state constitution’s equal protection clause.
According to the ruling, Sunday’s office asserted three state interests in support of the coverage exclusion, including a “state interest in protecting fetal life.” The court was not convinced by his arguments, writing that the Attorney General had not demonstrated that those interests were best pursued by the coverage ban.
“Any state interest in promoting carrying a pregnancy to term is furthered at least as well by state investment in maternal and infant healthcare, and in childcare and other resources for new mothers, as it is by the Coverage Exclusion,” Judge Matthew Wolf wrote.
In court documents filed Tuesday, Sunday’s office asked the Supreme Court to review whether the Commonwealth Court had made a mistake in recognizing a constitutional right to reproductive autonomy.