WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up appeals from states seeking to strip Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood — and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s critical vote to pass on them — reflects a wariness by the justices to wade into the thorny politics of abortion, at least for now.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Kavanaugh joined their four liberal-leaning colleagues to deny hearing cases that consider whether private individuals can sue to stop states from blocking groups such as Planned Parenthood from receiving government funding for non-abortion services.

It takes four justices to grant such petitions. and those who voted not to made no public comment as to why. But Justice Clarence Thomas, who was joined by Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch in an opinion saying the court should have granted the cases, made clear that he believed the politics of abortion were at play, even though the cases don’t involve abortion.

Thomas noted that lower appellate courts have come to different conclusions on the issue, leaving states without clear guidance on how to proceed as they face potential threat of costly lawsuits.

“So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here?” Thomas wrote. “I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’”

“That makes the Court’s decision particularly troubling, as the question presented has nothing to do with abortion,” Thomas continued.

It was the first clearly identifiable vote cast by Kavanaugh, just months after the Trump appointee’s contentious confirmation battle that was rocked by allegations of past sexual misconduct, but which also put a sharp focus on his views on abortion. Opponents of his nomination predicted that his confirmation would mean the almost-certain uprooting of the court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

While yesterday’s vote doesn’t mean that precedent won’t be revisited, it does likely reflect a desire by Kavanaugh and Roberts to proceed with caution.

“The chief justice and Justice Kavanaugh are no fans of the kind of private right of action the lower courts recognized below,” said University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck. “That they still voted to deny (hearing the cases) is a pretty powerful sign that they’d rather avoid these cases if possible.”