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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT