ILNews

Planned Parenthood's request for restraining order denied

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Judge Tanya Walton-Pratt has denied Planned Parenthood of Indiana's request for a temporary restraining order barring the enforcement of a law signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels on Tuesday.

Planned Parenthood asked the federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order preventing the enforcement of certain provisions of House Enrolled Act 1210. The new law prohibits the state from entering into a contract or giving funds to any entity that performs abortions, and also immediately cancels any existing contracts.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed the suit in the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of Planned Parenthood, two women who utilize the clinic’s non-abortion services, and two medical professionals involved in performing abortions at the clinic. The suit is Planned Parenthood of Indiana Inc., et al. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, et al., No. 1:11-CV-630.

Planned Parenthood maintains that although it does provide abortions, no state or federal money goes toward its abortion services. It says it is the largest, if not the only, entity in Indiana that is subject to loss of funding because of the law. Planned Parenthood is a provider of family planning and related services under Medicaid and the suit alleges that the new law will restrict where Medicaid recipients can receive family planning services and preventative care.

Planned Parenthood says because of the loss of the grants, it estimates it will lose more than $1 million, will have to close 13 of its health centers, and will be forced to lay off 52 full-time employees.

The plaintiffs argue that HEA 1210 violates the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, the Medicaid Act, the statue is preempted by federal law, and the law imposes an unconstitutional condition and is invalid.

Dr. Michael King and Carla Cleary, a certified nurse midwife, also challenge the language in the new law requiring patients to be told that human physical life begins at conception and that there is objective scientific evidence that the fetus can feel pain at or before 20 weeks. The suit contends this violates the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs.

In addition to the temporary restraining order, the plaintiffs asked Judge Tanya Walton-Pratt to issue a preliminary and, later, permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from enforcing the challenged provisions of HEA 1210. In a statement on the organization's website, Planned Parenthood of Indiana's President and CEO Betty Cockrum said the organization is disappointed that the judge didn't stop the law. Judge Walton-Pratt set a hearing on injunction for June 6.

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT