Feds review Indiana law targeting Planned Parenthood

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Federal officials said Monday they're taking a hard look at a new Indiana law that withholds some public funding for Planned Parenthood of Indiana, a development that could cost the state some of its Medicaid funding.

The U.S. Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services issued a statement saying it was reviewing Indiana's law and situations in other states threatening to withhold funds from abortion providers.

"Federal law prohibits federal Medicaid dollars from being spent on abortion services. Medicaid does not allow states to stop beneficiaries from getting care they need - like cancer screenings and preventive care - because their provider offers certain other services," the agency said. "We are reviewing this particular situation and situations in other states."

The statement, given to The Associated Press on Monday, was first reported by The New York Times.

The review appeared to pose the latest challenge to the contentious law signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels on May 10. The law makes Indiana the first state to deny Medicaid funds for general health services such as breast exams and Pap smears and affects more than $1 million in Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana President Betty Cockrum welcomed the federal review, saying Monday that it might provide a second avenue of relief if a federal judge decides not to grant the organization's request to block the law. Planned Parenthood argues in a federal lawsuit that statute is unconstitutional.

Cockrum also noted that the secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, which oversees Medicaid in Indiana, said last month that the law could threaten $4 million in federal funds that help various family-planning groups in Indiana.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller issued a statement Monday saying his office would "continue to diligently represent" the state against Planned Parenthood's lawsuit. A hearing is set for June 6 before U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, who has said she would rule by July 1.

"The State's position is that Planned Parenthood could set up separate corporate entities to provide abortions and Medicaid-eligible family planning services such that tax dollars do not wind up subsidizing abortions indirectly," Zoeller said.

Cockrum has said establishing separate entities would be "logistically challenging" and there was no guarantee that future Legislatures would not try to shut them down, too.

The state's non-partisan Legislative Services Agency also raised questions about the law. In a recent analysis, it noted that the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration said federal law requires state Medicaid plans "to provide any eligible individual medical assistance and that they can obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service(s) required."

Cockrum said at least six other states also were considering restrictions on abortion providers.

It wasn't clear Monday to which "situations in other states" the CMS statement was referring. But last week, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback signed a law that will require annual, unannounced inspections and impose new health and safety rules on abortion clinics, and prevent such clinics from using telemedicine systems to dispense pregnancy-terminating drugs.

In Texas, a plan to overhaul Medicaid funding and disbursements would strip state funding to all hospitals and clinics that perform abortions or "abortion-related services." The proposal has cleared that state House and is pending in the Senate. States pay a share of Medicaid services.

Missouri and Texas already block Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid block grants for family planning, said Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher, who is representing the state against the organization's lawsuit.

Indiana lawmakers wanted to cut all public funding to Planned Parenthood, but about $1.5 million in Medicaid family planning block grants flow to Planned Parenthood through a separate organization, and the new law does not affect those funds. The total amount of Medicaid funding the law would strip from Planned Parenthood for general health care services is about $1.4 million.

Planned Parenthood said it will continue serving 9,300 Medicaid patients at its 28 health centers across Indiana through at least May 30 after receiving more than $50,000 in recent donations from across the country and overseas.

Sue Swayze, legislative director for Indiana Right to Life, said she interpreted the CMS statement to mean the federal agency did not want any beneficiaries to lose health care services.

"The law is clear — and case law may be clear — that Indiana has the right to choose the vendors that they want," Swayze said.


  • Mitch with Egg on His Face
    I believe this entire battle will end with our state and residents suffering due to decreased federal funding, a shamed governor and state senate. Shame on you Indiana Politicians for ignoring real issues such as our economy and jobs and instead putting up a smoke screen agenda dealing with social issues which tug on heartstrings and take the heat off the fact that you are not doing your jobs as elected officials!
  • Planned Parenthood
    Tom, I couldn't agree more. Claiming that the money doesn't go toward abortions is a bookkeeping trick that doesn't hold water. These huge government contracts give PP the financial ability to do more abortions.

    It's a wonder that PP has enlisted so many gullible people with the bogus claim this is about women's health care. This is about a company wanting to avoid competition by getting government contracts which give PP a monopoly over certain services.
  • Bogus
    PP can claim the government money doesn't go toward providing abortions all they want; it's a book-keeping trick. If I have two jobs - two sources of income; I can claim all I want to that I'm not using boss #1's paycheck to buy supplies for job #2... but every penny I spend of boss 1's check elsewhere frees up dollars from boss 2's paycheck for stuff I need for job 2. Money I wouldn't have if not for boss 1.

    Nope; as far as I'm concerned, it passes muster - and the state should take this all the way to the Supremes if necessary.

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.