Photo courtesy Rep. Kathy Rapp’s Facebook page. Rep. Kathy Rapp, R-Warren, and Rep. Martin Causer, R-Bradford, are pictured after a recent meeting at Warren General Hospital to discuss challenges with rural labor and delivery services.

State Rep. Kathy L. Rapp, R-Warren, doesn’t agree with a recent Pennsylvania court decision stating the state’s constitution guarantees a right to abortion.

The ruling by a divided seven-judge panel of the appellate-level Commonwealth Court is a major victory for Planned Parenthood and abortion clinic operators who first sued Pennsylvania over its Medicaid funding restrictions in 2019.

While the case initially centered over state Medicaid limitations, the stakes significantly expanded after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 ended nearly a half-century of federal abortion protections by overturning Roe v. Wade.

The court’s finding on Monday marks the first time that the right to an abortion is protected by the Pennsylvania constitution, joining a handful of states where reproductive rights advocates have found success in protecting abortion access by pointing to state constitutions.

The case could still be appealed to Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court.

Rapp issued a public statement in the wake of the Commonwealth Court ruling in Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services.

“The Commonwealth Court’s ruling is an example of legislating from the bench,” Rapp said. “What started out as a case challenging the Commonwealth’s ban of using taxpayer funds to pay for most abortions turned into a ruling that creates a constitutional right to reproductive autonomy. The ban on taxpayer funding of abortions was upheld by our state Supreme Court over four decades ago. Now, the judiciary has determined this same prohibition is unconstitutional. What this means is taxpayers will be required to fund abortions under our Medical Assistance program.”

The court’s finding on Monday marks the first time that the right to an abortion is protected by the Pennsylvania constitution, joining a handful of states where reproductive rights advocates have found success in protecting abortion access by pointing to state constitutions.

In 2019, plaintiffs asked the court to order the state’s Medicaid program to begin covering abortions, without restriction, arguing that a 1982 Pennsylvania law restricting state Medicaid funding violated the constitutional equal protection rights of low-income women.

The case has since taken several turns, with a lower-court ruling in 2021 that the plaintiffs did not have standing and also saying that they were bound by a state Supreme Court 1985 decision upholding the 1982 law.

However, in 2024, the state Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s ruling and also determined that previous court decisions did not fully consider the breadth of state constitutional protections against discrimination beyond those provided by the federal constitution.

The seven judges on the lower court who heard the case largely sided with the plaintiffs on Monday. The majority opinion said the state should invest in maternal and infant health care and other resources if it believes that women should carry a pregnancy to term.

The attorney general’s office had argued that the state had an interest in “protecting fetal life” and that the Medicaid coverage exclusion helped support that goal.

Rapp was critical of the Commonwealth Court’s decision not to limit its decision to the issues presented in the case, and instead to issue a broader ruling.

“But the court didn’t stop there,” Rapp said. “It legislated ever further by declaring a constitutional right to reproductive autonomy. The case before the court did not need to be resolved with this sweeping declaration. This ruling strips away what the people, through their elected representatives, have continually declined to adopt. It is important to note that even with this ruling, the state still has a law regulating abortion in this Commonwealth – a law that was mostly upheld by the United States Supreme Court over three decades ago. But this ruling will now make it more difficult for the General Assembly to protect the lives of unborn children, thus denying them the right to equal protection under the law that this court ruling sought to accomplish. Despite this ruling, I will continue to advocate for the rights of the unborn.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.