Planned Parenthood Suing Several States

[WizardofOz]

Planned Parenthood sues Utah after it cuts off federal money

Republican Gov. Gary Herbert's action was unconstitutional and based on unfounded allegations, the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah said in federal court documents. Utah's decision to cut off funding followed similar moves in other states against local Planned Parenthood chapters. The organization has fought back, filing lawsuits in Arkansas, Alabama and Louisiana to block those states from stripping the group of contracts and federal money that the states dole out.

:liberals:

If there is a binding contract, I can understand legal action but how is the funding of PP a Constitutional issue? Why would ceasing their public funding be a legal matter on Constitutional grounds?

Battle of stretches...

 

[WizardofOz]

Another thing I am wondering about the secret recordings:

Planned Parenthood has said it acted legally and that the tapes were deceptively edited. The organization is barred from using federal or state money for abortions.

How does PP know that they were "deceptively edited"?

 

[rexlunae]

Planned Parenthood sues Utah after it cuts off federal money

Republican Gov. Gary Herbert's action was unconstitutional and based on unfounded allegations, the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah said in federal court documents. Utah's decision to cut off funding followed similar moves in other states against local Planned Parenthood chapters. The organization has fought back, filing lawsuits in Arkansas, Alabama and Louisiana to block those states from stripping the group of contracts and federal money that the states dole out.

:liberals:

If there is a binding contract, I can understand legal action but how is the funding of PP a Constitutional issue? Why would ceasing their public funding be a legal matter on Constitutional grounds?

Battle of stretches...

There is a legal right to participate freely and fairly in government bidding processes, and there is also a concept called a bill of attainder, which is prohibited by Article I section 9. Bills of attainder are laws that directly convict or punish specific individuals or organizations without legal due process. Both of those offer a possible justification. And it's also possible that these states broke contracts without cause.

If there is a legitimate legal case to be made against Planned Parenthood, it has to be made in the courts. You can't just declare a punishment.

 

[rexlunae]

Another thing I am wondering about the secret recordings:

Planned Parenthood has said it acted legally and that the tapes were deceptively edited. The organization is barred from using federal or state money for abortions.

How does PP know that they were "deceptively edited"?

Their employees were there for the tapings. Seems like they probably asked.

 

[themuzicman]

Their employees were there for the tapings. Seems like they probably asked.

Or maybe the videos are so horrible and so accurate that making this claim was their only chance at diffusing their problems.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

If there is a binding contract, I can understand legal action but how is the funding of PP a Constitutional issue? Why would ceasing their public funding be a legal matter on Constitutional grounds?

The Roe v Wade decision made it a Constitutional issue. If people allegedly have the "right" to kill their unborn for no reason other than convenience, to sodomize "whatshisname" or any other asinine SCOTUS ruling that deals with the supposed "right to privacy", then they (or organizations that represent them) also have a supposed "right" to receive public funding.

An activist federal judge will put a stop to this attempt at defunding PP and it will go all the way to SCOTUS, where activist judges will rule in favor of Planned Parenthood.

You can understand their mindset by reading this PP article.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/3013/9611/5870/Abortion_Roe_History.pdf

 

[Angel4Truth]

Planned Parenthood sues Utah after it cuts off federal money

Republican Gov. Gary Herbert's action was unconstitutional and based on unfounded allegations, the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah said in federal court documents. Utah's decision to cut off funding followed similar moves in other states against local Planned Parenthood chapters. The organization has fought back, filing lawsuits in Arkansas, Alabama and Louisiana to block those states from stripping the group of contracts and federal money that the states dole out.

:liberals:

If there is a binding contract, I can understand legal action but how is the funding of PP a Constitutional issue? Why would ceasing their public funding be a legal matter on Constitutional grounds?

Battle of stretches...

I don't know how it could be seen as unconstitutional either.

 

[ok doser]

Planned Parenthood sues Utah after it cuts off federal money

Republican Gov. Gary Herbert's action was unconstitutional and based on unfounded allegations, the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah said in federal court documents. Utah's decision to cut off funding followed similar moves in other states against local Planned Parenthood chapters. The organization has fought back, filing lawsuits in Arkansas, Alabama and Louisiana to block those states from stripping the group of contracts and federal money that the states dole out.

:liberals:

If there is a binding contract, I can understand legal action but how is the funding of PP a Constitutional issue? Why would ceasing their public funding be a legal matter on Constitutional grounds?

Battle of stretches...

haven't you been paying attention lately?

the constitution is whatever the scotus says it is

 

[WizardofOz]

haven't you been paying attention lately?

the constitution is whatever the scotus says it is

What has the SCOTUS said about the unconstitutionality of defunding PP? :idunno:

 

[WizardofOz]

"As far as I can tell ... this is an organization that doesn't need federal subsidy," House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said at the start. Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, said Planned Parenthood's $127 million in profit last year showed the organization could survive without federal funds. He accused the group of lavishly spending on travel, hosting "blowout parties" and paying "exorbitant salaries." Planned Parenthood gets about $500 million annually in federal funds, largely in Medicaid reimbursements. She said Planned Parenthood did not use federal funds for abortions, which comprise 3 percent of its services, or for fetal tissue donations, which are done by 1 percent of the clinics. Planned Parenthood clinic services include cancer screenings, family planning, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. Republicans favor shifting Planned Parenthood's federal funds to community clinics, and they grilled Richards on why doing so would restrict access to care. "You can't say that Planned Parenthood is like the only place" for low-income families to go, said Representative Mia Love, a Utah Republican.

source

Why does PP fight so hard over abortion if they'd largely be uncontroversial if they stopped offering them? They are only offered at 1% of their clinics and make up only 3% of their service.

Why can't these funds be offered to community clinics rather than PP?

If they make over $100 million in profit, do they really need federal grants and subsidies?

 

[rexlunae]

Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, said Planned Parenthood's $127 million in profit last year showed the organization could survive without federal funds. He accused the group of lavishly spending on travel, hosting "blowout parties" and paying "exorbitant salaries."

Planned Parenthood gets about $500 million annually in federal funds, largely in Medicaid reimbursements.

What's $127 million minus $500 million? How much money would they be making if they offered the same services at the same price in the same amount?

$600k is in line with the average for a CEO of a health care company. http://www.healthcareadministration.com/salary/

Republicans favor shifting Planned Parenthood's federal funds to community clinics, and they grilled Richards on why doing so would restrict access to care.

"You can't say that Planned Parenthood is like the only place" for low-income families to go, said Representative Mia Love, a Utah Republican.

It's the only place in some places. And there's no good reason to shut it down.

Why does PP fight so hard over abortion if they'd largely be uncontroversial if they stopped offering them?

Because women's rights are worth fighting for.

They are only offered at 1% of their clinics and make up only 3% of their service.

And if they didn't perform them, a lot of women wouldn't have easy access to them.

Why can't these funds be offered to community clinics rather than PP?

They largely are. It's not as if the government just hands them a bunch of money earmarked just for Planned Parenthood. They accept Medicaid, as they are eligible to do, and people come and use their services. On what grounds could they be excluded from Medicaid? That's like if Congress passed a law saying that you, WizardofOz can't get Federal tax credits just because they don't like you. It's called a bill of attainder, and it's directly unconstitutional. Other clinics can accept Medicaid too, and they can compete for that same business on the free market. But the fact is that a lot of clinics don't want to accept Medicaid.

If they make over $100 million in profit, do they really need federal grants and subsidies?

What's the rationale for disqualifying them?

 

[WizardofOz]

Rexlunae - I am not necessarily disagreeing with the counter arguments you've presented as I just recently started digging into the legal arguments each side is utilizing.

Planned Parenthood also sought to torpedo another key contention the Jindal administration made in its response to the court: That Planned Parenthood doesn't have the right to sue over a canceled contract in federal court. The organization's lawyers attack that defense as out of place, given a Supreme Court decision on right to sue centered on a lawsuit over Medicaid reimbursement rates -- not the cancellation of a Medicaid contract. Planned Parenthood needs to show that the organization and its patients would suffer that irreparable harm to be successful in winning the injunction.

More

More on Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Care Center Inc here

So PP certainly can sue LA.

More on the 'Would the De-fund Planned Parenthood bill be a bill of attainder?'here

Apparently, the argument didn't work for ACORN

The 2nd Circuit ruling definitely didn't stand for a bright line rule that "defunding is never punishment." Instead, the court considered three factors: With respect to the existence vel non of punishment, three factors guide our consideration: (1) whether the challenged statute falls within the historical meaning of legislative punishment (historical test of punishment); (2) whether the statute, "viewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed, reasonably can be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes" (functional test of punishment); and (3) whether the legislative record "evinces a [legislative] intent to punish" (motivational test of punishment). Selective Serv. Sys., 468 U.S. at 852, 104 S.Ct. 3348. All three factors need not be satisfied to prove that a law constitutes "punishment"; rather, "th[e] factors are the evidence that is weighed together in resolving a bill of attainder claim." In that ACORN case the court held that the defunding wasn't a punishment. But the analysis there was pretty fact specific, so I'm not sure how things would turn out in this case. The fact that the punishment is a "defunding," however, seems to make it a harder case for Planned Parenthood to make out as it undercuts one of the three tests (the historical test).

 

[gcthomas]

If they make over $100 million in profit, do they really need federal grants and subsidies?

Are you sure that this non-profit organisation is making a $100M profit?

 

[ok doser]

What has the SCOTUS said about the unconstitutionality of defunding PP? :idunno:

wait for it

 

[WizardofOz]

Are you sure that this non-profit organisation is making a $100M profit?

incredulous?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

PP will have some explaining to do:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/v...ncludes-planned-parenthood-videos-are-authent

AMR

 

[gcthomas]

incredulous?

You seem to be unaware of the difference between the terms profit and surplus. Profits are the return to the business owners to privately dispose of as they wish (must be zero for a non-profit), while surpluses for PP are the excess of revenue that are used to expand or improve the charity.

If you used the word profit to imply that directors/owners are benefiting financially from the funding, that would be underhand and misleading. If you were just confused by business terms, then now you know.

 

[iamaberean]

PP will have some explaining to do:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/v...ncludes-planned-parenthood-videos-are-authent

AMR

Here is where one can see the video for themselves. I don't recommend it to everyone, just those that thought Carly Fiorina was lying about it's existence.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-full-abortion-video-mentioned-in-gop-debate/

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Rexlunae - I am not necessarily disagreeing with the counter arguments you've presented as I just recently started digging into the legal arguments each side is utilizing.

Go ahead and disagree with the pro abortion arguments that rexlunae made, that's something that pro lifers are supposed to do (disagree with pro abortionists).

 

[WizardofOz]

You seem to be unaware of the difference between the terms profit and surplus. Profits are the return to the business owners to privately dispose of as they wish (must be zero for a non-profit), while surpluses for PP are the excess of revenue that are used to expand or improve the charity.

If you used the word profit to imply that directors/owners are benefiting financially from the funding, that would be underhand and misleading. If you were just confused by business terms, then now you know.

:doh: expanding or improving?