44.1 F
Indianapolis
Thursday, March 28, 2024

Planned Parenthood vs. state

More by this author

The eyes of the nation are on Indiana as the state continues its battle to implement a law, much of which originally was scheduled to go into effect July 1, which blocks distribution of Medicaid funds to organizations that perform abortions. The law, which some believe was directed at Planned Parenthood, has implications far beyond its 9,300 clients who would be affected, possibly affecting anyone whose health care is paid through Medicaid.

No date has been set on Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s attempt to overturn a federal court’s injunction. Those watching the case, however, believe it could be six months or later.

“This is a very important case. I wouldn’t be surprised if this moves up very quickly,” said Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Kate Shepherd.

Indiana made national news May 10 when Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law House enrolled Act 1210, making it the first state attempting to defund Planned Parenthood by blocking Medicaid reimbursements. Indiana is one of several states that have passed laws defunding Planned Parenthood.

In addition to Indiana, Planned Parenthood has filed suits to overturn laws in Kansas and Montana and may file suits in North Carolina, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Texas and Wisconsin. The organization’s national officials said they have never been involved in so many lawsuits at the same time.

State efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are in response to failed efforts in April at the federal level.

With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood of Indiana argues that the state is violating federal Medicaid regulations by denying patients the right to choose their own qualified health care providers.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana, which receives $1.5 million or 9 percent of its budget annually through Medicaid reimbursements, performs medical and surgical abortions at four of its 28 Indiana facilities. Federal law already prohibits taxpayer-funded abortions, so none of the funds in question could have been used that way.

U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Walton-Pratt, who late last year became Indiana’s first African-American federal district court judge, granted a preliminary injunction two weeks ago, preventing some provisions of the law from going into effect. Her decision reportedly was based on a letter from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that implied $5.4 billion in annual reimbursements for all low-income Indiana patients serviced by Medicaid could be in jeopardy.

“If dogma trumps pragmatism and neither side budges, Indiana’s most vulnerable citizens could end up paying the price as the collateral damage of a partisan battle,” Walton-Pratt wrote in her ruling.

The judge also ruled that a provision requiring doctors to tell patients verbally and in writing that a fetus can feel pain around 20 weeks violates the health care provider’s First Amendment rights. However, she left in place a provision that requires doctors to tell patients that human life begins at conception.

A provision of the law that outlaws abortions after 20 weeks was not under consideration by the judge. Planned Parenthood did not request the court’s opinion on the matter because the organization had no standing since it does not perform abortions after 13 weeks.

Walton-Pratt also said Planned Parenthood is not owed back Medicaid payments for services paid through donations after the law was signed. Planned Parenthood had been able to maintain service to its Medicaid patients since May because of donations that came from as far away as Belgium.

However, services had been halted and two workers were laid off earlier in the same week the judge issued her ruling. Those workers have been recalled, and service has been resumed.

“We were ecstatic with the judge’s ruling,” Shepherd said. “What it enabled us to do is take on new and existing Medicaid patients.”

Zoeller’s office last week filed notice of appeal on the ruling to the U.S. 7th Circuit Court.

“Both the legal challenge and the administrative appeal are headed to the same court – the U.S. 7th Circuit – which is where this dispute between the state and the federal government over what procedures we will allow our tax dollars to indirectly support should be heard,” Zoeller said.

Ā 

- Advertisement -

Upcoming Online Townhalls

- Advertisement -

Subscribe to our newsletter

To be updated with all the latest local news.

Stay connected

1FansLike
1FollowersFollow
1FollowersFollow
1SubscribersSubscribe

Related articles

Popular articles

EspaƱol + Translate Ā»
Skip to content