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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT