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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT