US Supreme Court declines to take Indiana Planned Parenthood cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday denied certiorari to two cases stemming from an Indiana law disqualifying a health care provider in participating in a government program because it provides abortion care.

The U.S. justices considered Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, 12-1159; and Secretary of the Ind. FSSA v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana, 12-1039, at its conference Thursday.

Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in the Southern District of Indiana granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of I.C. 5-22-17-5.5(b) that bars providing state or federal funds to “any entity that performs abortions or maintains a facility where abortions are performed.” Planned Parenthood and other plaintiffs sued after the defunding law was enacted in 2011. The law prohibits abortion providers from receiving any state-administered funds, even if the money is earmarked for other services.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the injunction in October 2012.

In the case brought by Planned Parenthood, the plaintiffs wanted the Supreme Court to determine whether the law imposes an unconstitutional condition in violation of the 14th Amendment. In the suit brought by FSSA, the agency challenged the decision that Medicaid grants individual rights enforceable under U.S.C. Section 1983. The 7th Circuit ruled that the defunding law excludes Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for a reason unrelated to its fitness to provide medical services, thus violating its patients’ statutory right to obtain medical care from the qualified provider of their choice.

Proceedings had been stayed in the case brought by Planned Parenthood in federal court until a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“We are happy that the Supreme Court’s action lets stand the appeals court ruling that the state does not have plenary authority to exclude a class of providers for any reason. Federal law protects the right of Medicaid patients to choose a health care provider free of interference from the state,” ACLU of Indiana Executive Director Jane Henegar said in a statement. The ACLU represented the plaintiffs in the case.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller also issued a statement on the Supreme Court decision.

"My office always contended this is ultimately a dispute between the state and federal government, not between a private medical provider and the state. We defended the legal authority of the people's elected representatives in the Indiana Legislature to make a public policy decision to ensure that tax dollars not indirectly subsidize abortion services by funding the payroll and overhead expenses of abortion providers who also offer Medicaid-covered services. We respect the federal courts' rulings in this matter and will confer with our state agency clients regarding any remaining legal avenues, including the separate administrative appeal of the state's Medicaid plan,” Zoeller said.

The justices also denied certiorari to a petition brought by Michael Dean Overstreet. Overstreet was sentenced to death in 2000 for the abduction, rape and murder of Franklin College student Kelly Eckart in 1997. His convictions and sentence have been affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court, as well as a petition for post-conviction relief.

Overstreet appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court’s decision to deny his petition for writ of habeas corpus regarding his sentence.


Post a comment to this story

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 Indiana Lawyer 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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit