Indiana asks court to lift Planned Parenthood order

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana asked a federal appeals court Monday to lift a judge's order blocking parts of a new abortion law that cuts some public Planned Parenthood funding, saying the issue should be decided by Medicaid officials and not the courts.

The 44-page brief asks the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago to reverse U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt's June 24 preliminary injunction, which barred the state from cutting Medicaid funds to the organization because it provides abortions.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller's filing Monday came just days after the state complied with the injunction by giving Planned Parenthood a $6,000 grant.

The filing is the latest legal salvo since Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the law May 10, temporarily cutting off about $1.4 million to Planned Parenthood of Indiana.

Planned Parenthood immediately challenged the law but was forced to briefly stop seeing Medicaid patients while it awaited Pratt's ruling after private donations ran out.

Indiana has argued that federal law forbids Medicaid to cover abortions in most circumstances and that the program indirectly funds the procedures because Planned Parenthood's financial statements show it commingles Medicaid funds with other revenues. The state has argued Medicaid might subsidize some overhead costs for space where abortions are performed.

In its brief filed Monday, Indiana says federal Medicaid officials, not the courts, should determine the law's legality. The state is appealing Medicaid Administrator Donald Berwick's June 1 decision rejecting changes to Indiana's Medicaid plan brought on by the new law. Berwick contended Medicaid recipients have the right to obtain treatment from any qualified provider, including those that provide abortions.

A hearing on the Medicaid appeal is scheduled for Sept. 13 in Chicago.

"This dispute belongs between the state and the federal government that administers and funds the Medicaid program, not between a private contractor and the state," Zoeller said in a statement. "The proper place to argue this dispute is the federal government's own administrative hearing process, established for exactly this purpose. We hope the 7th Circuit will agree, reverse the U.S. District Court's decision and allow the administrative review to run its course."

Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Kate Shepherd said the organization was reviewing the filing and has 30 days to respond, but declined to comment further. Shepherd previously has said the organization believes it can continue to get funding under Pratt's ruling even with the state's appeal because the injunction would stand unless it were overturned by another judge.

The organization serves about 9,300 Indiana clients on the state-federal health insurance plan for low-income and disabled people.

Indiana's legal action Monday came just three days after an agency reversed course and gave Planned Parenthood of Indiana $6,000 in neighborhood assistance grants.

The Indiana Housing Community and Development Authority said in June it would not give Planned Parenthood any grants because of the new state law, but it changed course Friday.

"With the new ruling, we determined that treating Planned Parenthood different than any other applicant would violate the injunction," said IHCDA spokeswoman Emily Duncan.

The $6,000 should help the group leverage $12,000 in donations, said Planned Parenthood of Indiana President and CEO Betty Cockrum.

She said the money will help Planned Parenthood provide preventive health care to low-income men and women in Marion County. The group has used the tax credit the last two years to raise $21,000 for its health services.


  • Surplus
    Well, I am glad that the State of Indiana has that surplus of funds, since AG Zoeller is apparently bound and determined to fight such an inane issue. Go ahead, Mr. Zoeller, spend and waste our tax dollars, I suppose there are more where those came from...
  • Indirect Funding Issue
    It is absolutely hilarious that any one could say with a straight face that because Medicaid reimbursment for other Medicaid covered services being comingled with general funds by Planned Parenthood indirect fund abortions by "possibly" subsidizing some of the overhead cost for space where abortions are provided. Really? Seriously? What a joke. Have any of you actually looked at the Medicaid fee schedule? The reimbursement for the services actually covered by Medicaid does not even cover the cost to provide those specific services. There is no "profit" being made on these services that contributes to funding any portion of any other service. Someone please clarify for me how you can argue that any funding is used, even indirectly, to cover overhead. The grant money they receive helps to make up the difference between what Medicaid pays and the actual cost of providing the services and to offset services that are not paid becuase of most of the contractors rarely pay the claim with the initial submission. What a joke!! Also, with the state cutting funding for many other Medicaid services and claiming to be an a state of crisis, why are we as tax payers footing the bill for the AG to appeal this decision. The feds weighed in and said "no" you can't limit member selection. Quit wasting my tax dollars!!!!!!
  • Horrific?
    The entire concept of feticide is abhorrent! Abortions shouldn't be back-alley operations... nor sterile OR operations, either. And DEFINITELY not be paid for in any guise with MY money! Mr. Zoeller, stick to your guns! It's what I've maintained all along - federal law forbids Medicaid to cover abortions in most circumstances and that the program indirectly funds the procedures because Planned Parenthood's financial statements show it commingles Medicaid funds with other revenues. So, cut 'em off. And you can take that any way you want...
  • What a waste of tax dollars
    So let me get this straight - they want it pulled from the courts and Medicaid officials to decide. But wait! Medicaid adminstrator Donald Berwick already rejected? I'm repulubican, but ashamed to say so in these times. It's time we stop pushing a radical agenda and start working for the people of Indiana.
  • I agree
    I agree with J. I live in Indiana, and I have no wish to see abortions become back-alley operations again. Nor do I wish to fund them indirectly by paying for emergency medical care for mothers who seek illegal abortions. Planned Parenthood provides an essential service to all of us by preventing these horrific things from happening.

    Mr. Zoeller, why don't we put some of the state money we're wasting on endless appeals toward SENSIBLE birth control instead? This Hoosier pays taxes and wants to know.
    • Indiana?
      I live in Indiana and I don't recall asking the federal appeals court to overturn the courts decision to cut off funding. I would be happy to assist in funding permanent birth control to cut out abortions, and I'd be happy to help develop a condom that couldn't be removed to help stop STD's, but I would rather see that money go towards helping uninsured or under-insured for general health care and the counseling they offer everything else should be paid in full by the client, not the state or me.

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.