Skip to main content

Planned Parenthood ban in Texas stopped

The fighting over funding Planned Parenthood continues.

In an earlier post, I observed that these fights over taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood are being won less over grand constitutional principles and more on legislative and regulatory arguments.

In this case, Planned Parenthood in Texas is attacking the state ban (on federal funds going to organizations that provide abortions) on two fronts. First, they have filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the ban violates the free speech rights of Planned Parenthood. The case is going to go to trial in federal court but Planned Parenthood lost its request to have a temporary injunction on the funding ban while the trial goes on.

Second, Planned Parenthood argues that a provision of Texas's administrative code prevents the state from doing anything that costs the state federal funds:
Under the Texas Human Resources Code, which governs the women’s health program, any provision is “inoperative if it causes Texas to lose federal matching funds” for that program, Planned Parenthood said in an e-mailed statement. “The rule will cost Texas taxpayers nearly $200 million over five years." (Source: Bloomberg News)
On this claim, Planned Parenthood won a temporary injunction.

Unlike other contraception and abortion related issues, I think that funding fights will remain essentially political in nature: I just don't see Planned Parenthood keeping taxpayer money flowing through constitutional claims. (Feel free to let me know if and why you disagree.) Texas may lose the battle on funding in the short term, but nothing prevents the state from changing its regulatory code to harmonize it with the state government's clear desire to defund abortion-providing organizations.

Links:

Article in Bloomberg News (October 27, 2012): Planned Parenthood Gets Texas Clinic Funding Ban Halted

Article in the Los Angeles Times (October 26, 2012): Planned Parenthood battles Texas in court over funding

Link to the federal Fifth Circuit decision (pdf): Planned Parenthood of Hidalgo County vs. Suehs, No. 12-50377 (5th Cir., August 21, 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

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou

How exceptions to abortion bans work in practice

The much awaited report of the Irish government "Expert Group"recommending how to implement exceptions to Ireland's abortion ban was issued this week. I have yet to read it, but when I do, I'll provide an analysis. In the meantime, one of the attorneys who participated in the famous "A, B and C" case has written an interesting essay about legal exceptions to abortion bans. In A, B and C v. Ireland (2010)  the European Court of Human Rights, consistent with the Supreme Court of Ireland, demanded that Ireland adopt at least a life-saving exception to its total legal ban on abortion-- which the Irish government has not done. In the wake of the death of Dr. Savita Halappanaver and resulting public pressure, the Irish government has finally produced a set of recommended legal and medical guidelines for doctors for implementing a "life" exception. The attorney and author of the Slate article, Julie F. Kay, expresses skepticism that a narrow life