IBJNews

Court stays out of Planned Parenthood funding case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana will likely stop defending a law that stripped Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood after the Supreme Court declined to hear the case Tuesday, an attorney who represents the nation's largest abortion provider predicted.

Indiana is among more than a dozen states that have enacted or considered laws to prevent taxpayers' money from funding organizations that provide abortion. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 23 that the law targeting Planned Parenthood went too far because it denied women the right to choose their own medical providers.

Planned Parenthood performs more than 300,000 abortions annually on a nationwide basis and more than 5,000 each year in Indiana.

"I assume at this point the state will give up in its claim that that portion of the statue is valid under the Social Security Act," said Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. The case now returns to U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, who granted the initial preliminary injunction to temporarily block the law, precipitating the state's appeals.

Neither the state senator who sponsored the bill or the Family and Social Services Administration — the agency tasked with enforcing the law — had immediate comment.

"My office always contended this is ultimately a dispute between the state and federal government, not between a private medical provider and the state," Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement. Zoeller's office handled the state's appeal.

The justices who rejected the state's appeal of the appeals' court ruling also did not comment.

The law aimed to deny Planned Parenthood funds from the joint federal-state Medicaid health program for the poor that are used for general health services including cancer screening.

Planned Parenthood warned that the law would deny more than 9,000 women access to other important health care services such as breast cancer screenings, birth control and prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. The organization was forced to stop seeing Medicaid patients for little more than a month, between the time the law was signed and the district court ruling saying it couldn't be enforced.

"While the state has been trying to score political points and wasting taxpayer dollars, we've been standing up for the Hoosiers who count on us every day. We look forward to the day the preliminary injunction in this case becomes permanent," Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, said in a statement.

Pratt's June 2011 decision blocked parts of the abortion law and granted Planned Parenthood of Indiana's request for a preliminary injunction on the state's move to defund the organization. Her decision sided with federal officials who said states cannot restrict Medicaid recipients' freedom to choose their health care provider or disqualify Medicaid providers merely because they also offer abortions.

Falk said the court rulings leave intact the state's power to block Planned Parenthood from receiving federal grants through the U.S. Department of Health, but those funds were a far smaller amount than the money the organization received from Medicaid.

The case now goes back to Pratt, who will decide whether to make the preliminary injunction permanent. Pratt was appointed in 2010 by President Barack Obama.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • waste of my money
    I, as a man, traditionally try to stay out of the argument unless its in private but when a local group wastes my money trying to fight the inevitable? get lost, buddy.
  • Finally
    Good. I'm glad we can finally let this law die the ignoble death it deserves. It was a stupid law in the first place, and those who passed it knew it would never withstand legal scrutiny. Note to our socially conservative Hoosier legislators: Please stop wasting the people's time and money trying to please your increasingly narrow base.

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. From the story: "The city of Indianapolis also will consider tax incentives and funding for infrastructure required for the project, according to IEDC." Why would the City need to consider additional tax incentives when Lowe's has already bought the land and reached an agreement with IEDC to bring the jobs? What that tells me is that the City has already pledged the incentives, unofficially, and they just haven't had time to push it through the MDC yet. Either way, subsidizing $10/hour jobs is going to do nothing toward furthering the Mayor's stated goal of attracting middle and upper-middle class residents to Marion County.

  2. Ron Spencer and the entire staff of Theater on the Square embraced IndyFringe when it came to Mass Ave in 2005. TOTS was not only a venue but Ron and his friends created, presented and appeared in shows which embraced the 'spirit of the fringe'. He's weathered all the storms and kept smiling ... bon voyage and thank you.

  3. Not sure how many sushi restaurants are enough, but there are three that I know of in various parts of downtown proper and all are pretty good.

  4. First off, it's "moron," not "moran." 2nd, YOU don't get to vote on someone else's rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the US Constitution. That's why this is not a state's rights issue...putting something like this to vote by, well, people like you who are quite clearly intellectually challenged isn't necessary since the 14th amendment has already decided the issue. Which is why Indiana's effort is a wasted one and a waste of money...and will be overturned just like this has in every other state.

  5. Rick, how does granting theright to marry to people choosing to marry same-sex partners harm the lives of those who choose not to? I cannot for the life of me see any harm to people who choose not to marry someone of the same sex. We understand your choice to take the parts of the bible literally in your life. That is fine but why force your religious beliefs on others? I'm hoping the judges do the right thing and declare the ban unconstitutional so all citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana have the same marriage rights and that those who chose someone of the same sex do not have less rights than others.

ADVERTISEMENT