Texas Granted "Stay"by Federal Appeals Judge in Planned Parenthood case

[LSN80]

Although just 24 hours prior, a Federal Judge overturned a ruling that banned Planned Parenthood, and more specifically, any Women's Health Programs from receiving state funding, a Federal Appeals Judge granted a stay against the ruling, stating he wants to hear arguments from both sides.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...s-health-law/2012/05/01/gIQALJZAuT_story.html

Last year at this time, Texas lawmakers renewed a semblance of a Women's health plan that stated no funds should go to clinics associated with abortion providers, even if that clinic itself does not provide abortions. Previously and currently in place is a ban by the state for funding of organizations and clinics that provide elective abortions. To me, in it's simplest form, the law is saying that " We can't legally ban you from providing abortions, but we're going to make it as difficult as possible for you to do so."

Planned Parenthood had filed a Federal lawsuit earlier this year, stating that the rule violated the group’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. Their side was victorious Monday, as Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that the rule was indeed unconstitutional, and that funding should be provided again until a trial could be held. Planned Parenthood had argued that the program involving funding to these clinics and organizations, a $40 million dollar one, provided health care to approximately 130,000 women who did not have health care. Only 3% of the services provided were for elective abortions, while the rest provided basic check-ups, contraception and cancer screenings. 90% of the funding for the program was provided by the state, but funding was cut completely last month when officials said the program violated the Federal law passed last year. So Judge Yeakel's ruling was indeed a large one for Planned Parenthood and Women's Health Care in general in the state of Texas, only for Federal Appeals Judge Jerry Smith to step in today. Smith's ruling is summed up here.

I am granting Texas an emergency stay lifting the Austin court’s order(to allow funding). I want to hear arguments from both sides on whether the state should be prevented from enforcing a law that bans Planned Parenthood from participating in the program. Attorneys representing the eight Planned Parenthood organizations involved in the suit until 5 p.m. on Tuesday to present their arguments.

Spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Health and Human Services Stephanie Goodman said the following today:

The order allows the agency to exclude the clinics from the program effective today. She said women having trouble locating a health care provider should contact the agency. The state may ban groups from the Women’s Health Program that don’t agree with the state’s policies.Although Planned Parenthood shares some of the program’s goals — such as promoting women’s health and reducing unwanted pregnancies — it also contravenes the very purpose of the program by actively promoting elective abortion. Planned Parenthood and its affiliates have every right to hold that belief and advocate for elective abortion, but they are not entitled to receive taxpayer subsidies from a government program that is designed to encourage preventative birth control and discourage abortion.”

Texas has notoriously been a state that is, in it's lawmaking majority, anti-abortion. But the entity of this ruling affects the health and healthcare of women, specifically, the poor, much more then it does abortion. Because the state doesn't want to use "taxpayer subsidies" to "encourage abortion", 9.7/10 women are being denied healthcare from basic check-ups to cancer screening that they otherwise cannot afford. Regardless of one's stance on abortion, the logic here is flawed. This "all or nothing" thinking is legislation of morality in health care facilities and their ability to provide care for those who desperately need it. It baffles me that no compromise of some kind can be reached about, at the least, what the funding can be used for, and ways to keep these Organizations and Programs accountable for what they will and will not pay for.

Sarah Wheat, interim CEO of Planned Parenthood of Austin Family Planning, had the following comments on the story:

“We are disappointed in the stay granted last night,When presented with both sides, the District Court agreed the rule was likely unconstitutional, and that implementation would cause a serious problem with health care access for Texas women.”

She said it better then I ever could. Again, whether your stance is for or against abortion is irrelevant here. While I sure Ms. Wheat has her own moral agenda she's trying to push, she did mention the most important thing: Health Care for women being vital. Ms. Goodman, the representative for the Texas Department of Human Services, has a very dangerous, "fall in line" attitude with her statement of

"The state may ban groups from the Women’s Health Program that don’t agree with the state’s policies."

To me, this puts the state's view of morality as more important then the healthcare and well-being of the women who need healthcare. And they're the ones who are forced to stand by, waiting for healthcare that may or may not come. Hell, even Rick Perry has stepped in and ordered the state to find the money to fund these programs so that women can receive the healthcare, and when necessary, elective abortions. Yet what we wind up with is the Department of Human Services and two Federal Appeals Court Judges engaging in a battle over morality n a game of one-upmanship, forgetting what's truly important here. The health and well-being of the women, mostly lower-class who reside in the state.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Mustang Sally]

It baffles me that no compromise of some kind can be reached about, at the least, what the funding can be used for, and ways to keep these Organizations and Programs accountable for what they will and will not pay for.

It isn't baffling at all: when it comes to matters involving abortion, there can be no compromise with people who don't believe in choice. They don't see it as an "all or nothing" concept......they see it as "all." This is evident in the statistic that says only 3% of the funding at Planned Parenthood goes toward abortions; they don't see the 97% that would go toward services for women that they approve of.....their concern is only the 3% they're against.

How do you compromise with that? How does society reach a consensus when one side doesn't believe in choice? I don't see any middle ground that can be reached in this issue.

As with so many things, this is now an issue for the courts. The anti-choice people have been smart in the last decade or so, looking to chip away at Roe vs. Wade a little at a time, hoping to eventually crumble the foundation and get it repealed. Someday, they may well succeed, although it's foolish to think abortions will stop just because they're against the law. The generation of women now of child-bearing age have never known a time abortion wasn't legal, so of Roe is repealed, many will turn to back-alley procedures that are dangerous for mothers and children.

The short-sightedness of what's going on in Texas with cutting off all funds to stop procedures that represent only a small fraction of what Planned Parenthood does is an good example of why there can never be compromise on the issue of abortion.