Indiana enacted a law in recent months that barred medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood for general health services. The law is being challenged by both Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. The new law didn’t pass the whiff test. According to Politico.com:
A federal judge in Indianapolis on Friday blocked part of an Indiana law that cut off public funding for the state’s Planned Parenthood operations because they provide abortions, The Associated Press reported.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, who was appointed in 2010 by President Barack Obama, granted the organization an injunction that nullifies the portion of the Indiana law, recently signed by Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels.
Indiana also got slapped on the wrist by a Reagan appointed judge:
U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker ordered Indiana to not enforce portions of an Arizona-style immigration bill due to take effect July 1, the Indianapolis Star reported.
Barker, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, ordered struck down the law’s prohibition of the use of identification cards issued by foreign consulates and provision allowing police to arrest local law enforcement to arrest people whose immigration status has been questioned by federal authorities.
Is this what we call political blow-back? On the national level, Indiana Congressman Mike Pence declared war on Planned Parenthood. His efforts were semi-successful.
Part of blocking the Planned Parenthood ban involved patient rights. The court questioned whether patients could be denied access to particular medical establishments. It certainly seems that Planned Parenthood is being singled out. Can you imagine a medicare ban on a cardiologist or Kaiser? The government can not cover services but it cannot say where that patient goes for a qualified service. It appears that Indiana has done some far over-reaching. Apparently they are still trying to put some pants on that buffalo !
Rule of law still reigns in some places, go Indiana!
Prepare to see all buffaloes wearing pantaloons.
I would say go judge!
Question for the peanut gallery: Would ACORN et al. v. United States apply here? What I mean by that is PP is arguing that they are entitled to government money. Didn’t the SCOTUS basically say that Congress (or a legislature) can simply defund whatever they want whenever they want to?
I guess another way of putting this.. Could General Electric argue to the Courts that it was unfair that Congress pulled it’s funding on the 2nd Joint Strike Fighter engine?
Pratt wrote, “If dogma trumps pragmatism and neither side budges, Indiana’s most vulnerable citizens could end up paying the price as the collateral damage of a partisan battle,”
If you think about it for a moment with out the idea of pro- or anti-abortion. Think of what the judge just said there. That’s scary stuff.. It’s wording like that that justified internment camps.