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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT