IBJNews

State gets week to respond in Planned Parenthood case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A federal judge on Friday gave the state of Indiana a week to respond to the Obama administration's decision siding with Planned Parenthood of Indiana in an attempt to block the state's new abortion funding law.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted the state's request that it receive a week to respond to a Justice Department brief filed Thursday. The brief supports Planned Parenthood's request for an injunction blocking a new state law that bars it from receiving Medicaid payments for general health services such as cancer screens.

The law signed May 10 by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels cuts off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood because the organization provides abortions.

The Justice Department sided with Planned Parenthood in its brief, reiterating many of the same arguments the Obama administration laid out in a June 1 letter saying the state's new Medicaid plan violated federal law.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has said the state would appeal the Obama administration's ruling on Indiana's Medicaid plan and called Thursday's filing by the Justice Department "inappropriate."

"The federal government's surprise filing yesterday seems inappropriate as they should be heard in the administrative process and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that they have established for this purpose," Zoeller said in a statement Friday.

Planned Parenthood wrote in a separate filing Friday that it was fine with the state's request for additional time to respond.

Pratt has previously said that she expects to rule on the injunction request by July 1. It is unclear whether the late filings from the Justice Department and state will affect that deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT