Skip to main content

De-funding of Planned Parenthood blocked

An Indiana law that attempted to block all federal and state Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood (or any organization that provides abortion as one of its services) was struck down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The importance and scope of the decision should not be overstated. While supporters of Planned Parenthood are touting this (correctly) as a victory, the grounds on which the law was struck down were fairly narrow.

Federal law requires that Medicaid money be given to any organization that is able to provided quality medical services to Medicaid recipients. Planned Parenthood meets the threshold definition of a qualified medical facility; therefore, it can't be denied Medicaid money by a Medicaid-participating state like Indiana.

Here is a relavant excerpt from the decision (via Politico):
"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.
Indiana can still prevent state money from paying for abortions, just as the federal government does (with exceptions). It just can't deny funding for non-abortion services.

In short, while poor patients will benefit from the decision, it does not establish some kind of broader constitutional right. If Mitt Romney becomes president, it is feasible that the President and Congress could simply modify the language regarding Medicaid funding to allow states to cut off funds for any organization that provides abortions, even for non-abortion services.

Links:

Article, by the Associated Press, in Politico (October 23, 2012): Court blocks defunding of Planned Parenthood in Indiana

Link to the Seventh Circuit decision: Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Comm. of the Indiana State Dept. of Health (October 23, 2012)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

Spontaneous miscarriage and the morality of abortion

Hello, everyone! I have been away from the blog for a while, during a period of great activity regarding reproductive politics. So let's get back to discussing this always-interesting topic.  In reading an essay by Gary Gutting (subject of a separate post), I followed a link to this blog post by philosopher Peter Smith.  He wonders why intentional termination of an early pregnancy is more morally consequential than a spontaneous early miscarriage (which occurs in roughly 30% of conceptions). What he is really doing is calling attention to a perceived hypocrisy by pro-life advocates: If unborn are valuable humans from the moment of conception, why isn't there more of an outcry over the heavy loss of human life by natural miscarriage? If the value of the unborn is equal across all situations, Smith suggests, then this apparent lack of concern over natural miscarriage indicates that opposition to abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is about something else.  ...