Indiana Loses Battle to De-Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Business

State   Steven Ertelt   Jul 30, 2013   |   6:23PM    Indianapolis, IN

Indiana has lost its battle to de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business — as a judge today issued a permanent injunction in the abortion giant’s favor in its lawsuit against the state over the de-funding law.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in Indianapolis issued the order preventing state officials from preventing Medicaid dollars from flowing the nation’s largest abortion company.

In May, the Supreme Court declined to take the state’s appeal of a lower court decision. Previously, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld a lower court judge’s ruling that the state of Indiana can’t de-fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business via the state Medicaid program it runs.

The 2012 ruling from a three-judge panel indicated Indiana can’t enforce a state law signed by then-Governor Mitch Daniels disqualifying Planned Parenthood from participating in family planing program because it does abortions.

Indiana Right to Life President and CEO Mike Fichter told LifeNews the State of Indiana and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky filed an agreement in federal court over the 2011 state law. The agreement, which still needs to be approved by a federal judge, will end the state’s legal battle to enforce the 2011 law.

Fichter said: “The news of this agreement is not surprising, but it is disappointing. Planned Parenthood, the state’s largest abortion provider, will continue to receive funds through the Medicaid program, effectively freeing up other monies to expand and support its abortion business. Hoosiers don’t want their hard-earned tax dollars going to an organization that ends of the lives of the unborn, and this agreement keeps the funding spigot turned on.”

“Even though the Medicaid funding portion of the 2011 law does not stand, we are thankful that Planned Parenthood no longer receives federal block grants administered by the state as specified in the law and as upheld by the 7th Circuit Court. This is a small silver lining,” he added.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana is Indiana’s largest abortion provider and does more than 5,000 abortions each year.

Indiana became the fist state of several to kick the abortion business out of its program in May 2011. A provision of the law would prevent Medicaid patients from obtaining services at Planned Parenthood and other facilities that provide abortions, with the exception of hospitals and ambulatory care centers. The law prohibits state agencies from providing state or federal funds to “any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.”

Governor Mitch Daniels signed the law, which would cut off anywhere from $2 million to $3 million the Planned Parenthood abortion business receives in federal funds via the Indiana government through Medicaid. Afterwards, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Donald Berwick said the federal Medicaid law stipulates that states can’t exclude providers based on the services they provide.

The Obama administration twice rejected Indiana’s effort to revoke taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business, which upset Mike Fichter, the president of Indiana Right to Life: “We are deeply troubled by the Obama administration’s continued rejection of Indiana’s right to end Medicaid funding for Indiana’s largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood, even after expert testimony concluded that ‘there is a significant probability that Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood cross-subsidize its abortion services.’”

“Once again, the administration is revealing its absolute disdain for states rights while propping up the business of abortion at the expense of Hoosier taxpayers. Fortunately, this is not the final ruling. We remain confident that Indiana will prevail and that Hoosiers will have the confidence of knowing their tax dollars are not paying for abortions,” he said.

Previously, the Obama administration filed legal papers supporting the lawsuit brought forward by the Planned Parenthood abortion business seeking to challenge the Indiana law revoking its taxpayer funding.

In its legal papers, Indiana argues that there is “no record that Planned Parenthood of Indiana makes any effort to either segregate Medicaid reimbursements from other unrestricted revenue sources or to allocate the cost of its various lines of business, whether abortion, family planning, cancer screenings, or other services.”

“This indicates that, while PPIN may not receive Medicaid reimbursements directly related to abortions, the Medicaid reimbursements it does receive are pooled or comingled with other monies it receives and thus help to pay for total operational costs,” the state said, making it so abortions or costs related to abortions are indirectly funded. (View the full document here: Memo in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction)

In addition, the state argues that the new law serves the public interest in three ways:  the funding qualification provision prevents taxpayer dollars from indirectly funding abortions; it advances the State’s goals of encouraging women to choose childbirth over abortion, and the informed consent requirements ensure that women who choose abortion have all the information necessary to make an informed and voluntary decision.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

Three pro-life legal groups weighed in on the case— including the American Center for Law and Justice, Alliance Defense Fund and Thomas More Society — and they have said the law is constitutional.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana in 2008 suspended an employee after a video showed the staffer covering up a girl’s statutory rape. The video was a part of an earlier series of undercover investigations Live Action performed with a UCLA student, Lila Rose, posing as a 13-year old girl who had sexual relations with a 31-year-old man.

On tape, the Planned Parenthood nurse acknowledges her responsibility to report the abuse, but assures the student, Lila Rose, she will not.

“Okay, I didn’t hear the age [of the 31-year-old]. I don’t want to know the age,” she tells Rose.