The implantation of rights: an argument for unconditionally funded Norplant removal.

This article addresses the legal implications of a Medicaid policy that provides unconditional funding for insertion of the Norplant contraceptive implant but sharply restricts the availability of funding for removal. Currently, the state Medicaid plans of all fifty states provide funding for Norplant insertion.' Three states, however, list documented medical necessity as a prerequisite to funded Norplant removal when requested within five years of implantation.' Those state policies which incorporate a removal restriction have the potential to place indigent Norplant users in a situation where they are unable to cease contraceptive usage, an effect that raises serious statutory and constitutional questions. Part I of this article provides general information on the Norplant contraceptive implant and the current funding restrictions in three state Medicaid programs. Part II analyzes the current removal policy against the statutory framework of the Social Security Act and its interpretive regulations. Part III addresses issues arising under the United States Constitution. The article concludes that because of the uniquely invasive nature of the Norplant contraceptive system, applicable statutes, regulations, and constitutional principles should be read to prohibit a state plan from demanding medical necessity as a precondition to removal and require states that fund Norplant implantation to fund removal at the demand of the patient.