IBJNews

Court affirms block on Planned Parenthood defunding

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Indiana can't block Medicaid funds for Planned Parenthood just because the organization provides abortions, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, upholding the crux of a lower court order that said the state couldn't deny patients the right to choose their own health care provider.

The ruling will likely have little impact on Planned Parenthood's operations in Indiana as funding to its clinics has been largely uninterrupted since Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels signed a law attempting to cut the organization off in May 2011.

That law made Indiana the first state to deny the Planned Parenthood Medicaid funds for general health services including cancer screenings. The organization immediately challenged the law with help from the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt blocked the state from enforcing the law in June 2011.

The state appealed that order, arguing that federal law says Medicaid cannot be used to cover abortions in most circumstances and that the program indirectly funds the procedures by providing money for Planned Parenthood.

On Tuesday, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld the core portion of Pratt's order, saying the Indiana law effectively stamps on a person's right to choose their doctors.

"The defunding law excludes Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for a reason unrelated to its fitness to provide medical services, violating its patients' statutory right to obtain medical care from the qualified provider of their choice," the ruling said.

Planned Parenthood performs more than 5,500 abortions annually in Indiana.

Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for the Indiana attorney general's office, said the state was reviewing the appeals court opinion. The state can either ask the full court to review the panel's ruling or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The governor's office did not return phone calls Tuesday morning seeking comment.

The ACLU said the appeals court decision was a victory, above all, for women.

"This law was an attempt by politicians to punish organizations that are providing legal services," Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a news release. "Elected officials should not place politics above women's health."

The appeals court also said Pratt needed to modify other sections of her order that ACLU attorney Ken Falk said dealt with revenue sources other than Medicaid.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Good Comments
    Both of the comments here are insightful. I am not sure anyone is really "pro-abortion". Rational people understand that the best way to end abortion is through poverty relief, improvement in affordable health care options, sexual education, and contraceptives. The statistics from credible health and human rights organizations bear this out...in countries where abortion is illegal, it is still common place, and deadly to both the mother and the unborn. I gratuated from high school in 1972, before Roe vs Wade...there were a few states where you could get abortions, and in other countries...two girls in my high school class got abortions, one in New York, one in Canada. Their parents encouraged it, paid for the travel and the abortion in both cases...you won't stop some women (and parents of pregnant teenagers) who seek to terminate their pregnancy no matter what you do. In demand services are always supplied by someone. The only possible thing that will work is to take steps to curtail/eliminate unwanted pregnancy.
  • Let's be clear...
    Thank you Susan - I'm a Dem, but it's nice to know that there are others on the other side of politics that see the good this organization does. Let's be clear though... no one is ever pro abortion. Pro choice simply means letting a woman and her doctor decide what is best for her. Stripping the funding from Planned Parenthood is indeed narrow minded and extreme - especially since this organization does more to PREVENT abortions with their education, preventative services, and low cost or free birth control. Nearly all the women I know have at some point used their services. And it's not just for women, they offer services to men as well. I agree, that seeing more articles on the services they do provide would be nice and would help educate people about what they actually do.
  • Full disclosure
    I'd like to see articles that discuss Planned Parenthood's services more fully describe the services they provide. They are far more than an abortion clinic (which many seem to beleive) and provide a valuable health service to many people around the state. I am a Republican and am not pro-abortion, but cutting all funding is narrow-minded and will extreme.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. If a television station wants to improve viewership, get rid of the local blackout. I was born by the brickyard, and have attended 15 or more races. I have children now, I won't attend unless circumstances are perfect. As those with growing families know, they never are. I'm always impressed that upwards of 250,000 people attend the 500. However, as a growing, or, more apt, sprawling city, Indianapolis and its immediate suburbs count almost 2.2 million. Show the race live, let the venue get a kick-back on revenues, and open-wheel racing might have a fighting chance to be relevant again. Just in time for those tax-payer lights to make sense.

  2. John Moore, I too have had the same issue recently. A property next to my house was on the Land Bank and I was interested in purchasing. When I tried to contact Reggie, I got back emails that had nothing to do with what I asked about. Actually my latest response from him was on this past Friday. I had asked about how to buy the property and if it was still available. His response to me was to contact the mayor's office to get the schedule of his appearances. (???) Hopefully the city is able to do something to fix what this guy has done, it would be nice if they would take the properties back and sell them properly so land owners like me and you mother would have a fair chance.

  3. I too work in the industry, with over 25 years of experience and your political spin has probably nothing to do with any rebranding. "Let's dress it up" would have nothing to do with the government "telling us how and what to eat." Give it a political rest. And being a producer for a radio show doesn't mean you've been involved in advertising and branding for 30 years.

  4. Ms. Morris did not understand the ways of the business world, otherwise, like the IMS, she could have petitioned the State Legislature for a handout of State Funds for her charity work. Ms. Morris should consider becoming a state lobbyist for Lemonade Stand Operators.

  5. David Copperfield!

ADVERTISEMENT