ILNews

Indiana files appellate brief in Planned Parenthood case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Office of the Indiana Attorney General filed its appellate brief Monday asking the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to lift a preliminary injunction against parts of the new abortion-provider law cutting public Planned Parenthood funding.

In the 55-page brief, Attorney General Greg Zoeller asks the appellate court to reverse the June 24 injunction issued by U.S. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in the Southern District of Indiana. Her order barred Indiana from cutting Medicaid funds to the organization because it provides abortions despite those services being funded separately from the taxpayer money it receives.

Zoeller says federal Medicaid officials, not the courts, should determine the law's legality and the administrative review process should be followed.

“The federal government reimburses States whose Medicaid plans conform to the Medicaid Act and may refuse to issue grants to States with non-compliant plans. But a non-compliant plan, while perhaps ineligible for federal reimbursement, does not ‘violate’ any federal law, let alone violate federal rights,” the brief says. ”Establishing a non-compliant plan is akin to lowering the drinking age to 18 and risking a diminished share of federal highway funds.”

Overall, the brief makes several arguments, including the federalist argument that the Medicaid Act expressly gives states authority to establish provider qualifications and that the federal law doesn’t impose legal duties or rights on those states and providers. The Contract Clause also permits states to alter the terms of their welfare and regulatory programs, the attorney general argues.

A hearing on the Medicaid appeal is scheduled for Sept. 13 in the Chicago-based appellate court.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT