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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT