Court refuses Planned Parenthood appeal of Texas funding cut

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://news.yahoo.com/court-refuses-planned-parenthood-appeal-texas-funding-cut-001603584.html

By Corrie MacLaggan | Reuters – 2 hrs 38 mins ago

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - A federal appeals court declined on Thursday to reconsider a ruling that would allow Texas to withhold funding for women's healthcare from Planned Parenthood's clinics because the organization also performs abortions.

Texas Governor Rick Perry said after the order by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans that the state would immediately stop paying program participants that are affiliates of abortion providers.

"Today's ruling affirms yet again that in Texas the Women's Health Program has no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform or promote abortion," the Republican governor said in a statement. "In Texas we choose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice."

A three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled in August that Texas may exclude groups affiliated with abortion providers from the Women's Health Program, which provides cancer screenings, birth control and other health services to more than 100,000 low-income Texas women.

In a filing with the court in September, Planned Parenthood asked the full court to rehear the matter, saying the rule violates its First Amendment rights to speech and association.

Planned Parenthood said on Thursday that further consideration by the full court was needed to protect women's access to preventive health care like breast and cervical cancer screenings and birth control.

"Politics should never come between a woman and her health care, but in this decision, which conflicts with Supreme Court precedent, it appears it has," Kenneth S. Lambrecht, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, said in a statement.

Lambrecht added that Planned Parenthood was evaluating its options but didn't say how the group would proceed. Options include appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case could proceed to trial in U.S. district court in Austin, where a trial had been postponed in part because the appeals court was considering the matter.

OTHER FACILITIES TO ABSORB PATIENTS

The federal government, which pays for 90 percent of the $39 million-a-year program, has said it will not renew the funding because Texas decided to enforce a law that had been on the books for several years barring funding for abortion providers and affiliates.

Texas is creating its own program for the women using state funds. It is set to begin November 1.

The state's health and human services chief said last week that the program would shut down if Planned Parenthood were allowed to continue participating.

Planned Parenthood says it does not provide abortions at clinics that participate in the program. The state objects to the family planning group's affiliation with clinics that do provide abortions.

Planned Parenthood says it serves nearly half of the women in the program. A study released this month by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services raised questions about whether other facilities would be able to absorb the patients now served by Planned Parenthood.

"We've increased the number of doctors and clinics in the program, and we'll be ready to help any woman who needs to find a new provider," Texas Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Dr. Kyle Janek said Thursday in a statement.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

This is going to turn into a domino affect in the more conservative states.

[G0ds1ay3r 30]

Yet ANOTHER reason not to move to the Hill billy states.

Edited October 26, 2012 by scottjess

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Great..

Rational people say:

If you are outraged at the idea of telling a woman what to do with her own body, then you should be equally outraged at the idea of confiscating another persons money to help fund her choices.

Both ideas fly in the face of the freedoms of our people and both are equally morally wrong.

I am Pro choice and and all for readily available birth control. However if you are going to play grown up things then don't ask others to fund your choices.

Yet ANOTHER reason not to move to the Hill billy states.

I agree please don't move down here.

Did you notice it did not say outlaw abortion, it just say taxpayers should not pay for it.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Great..

Rational people say:

If you are outraged at the idea of telling a woman what to do with her own body, then you should be equally outraged at the idea of confiscating another persons money to help fund her choices.

Both ideas fly in the face of the freedoms of our people and both are equally morally wrong.

I am Pro choice and and all for readily available birth control. However if you are going to play grown up things then don't ask others to fund your choices.

I agree please don't move down here.

Did you notice it did not say outlaw abortion, it just say taxpayers should not pay for it.

Yes, choices like preventative cancer screenings and mammograms. Filthy, slutty choices.

You do understand how government funding of Planned Parenthood works, right?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, choices like preventative cancer screenings and mammograms. Filthy, slutty choices.

You do understand how government funding of Planned Parenthood works, right?

Every penny spent on cancer screenings is a penny taken away from funding Viagra.

[JohnR! 5,495]

I understand your POV, however it would make more sense that the request came in the form of not including abortions as a byproduct of the Planned Parenthood clinics.

Just cutting fund for PP altogether is no different than throwing the baby out with the bath water - pun intended, especially in a state like Texas that boasts one of the largest if not the largest contingent of non-insured residents, when it comes to health insurance.

Great..

Rational people say:

If you are outraged at the idea of telling a woman what to do with her own body, then you should be equally outraged at the idea of confiscating another persons money to help fund her choices.

Both ideas fly in the face of the freedoms of our people and both are equally morally wrong.

I am Pro choice and and all for readily available birth control. However if you are going to play grown up things then don't ask others to fund your choices.

I agree please don't move down here.

Did you notice it did not say outlaw abortion, it just say taxpayers should not pay for it.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Gegel

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I understand your POV, however it would make more sense that the request came in the form of not including abortions as a byproduct of the Planned Parenthood clinics.

Just cutting fund for PP altogether is no different than throwing the baby out with the bath water - pun intended, especially in a state like Texas that boasts one of the largest if not the largest contingent of non-insured residents, when it comes to health insurance.

Trying to separate PP from abortion would be like trying to separate ford from the car business. Yes you can buy other things besides a whole car at a Ford dealership, but without selling cars there would be no Ford.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The government at all levels needs to stay the hell out of people's decisions involving abortion and should not be funding Planned Parenthood or any other private organization on either side of the issue. If you accept government "help" you also have to accept their restrictions and control. No thanks!

"Pro-choice" means STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS!

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

The government at all levels needs to stay the hell out of people's decisions involving abortion and should not be funding Planned Parenthood or any other private organization on either side of the issue. If you accept government "help" you also have to accept their restrictions and control. No thanks!

"Pro-choice" means STAY OUT OF MY BUSINESS!

Exactly what i want them to see. A woman's birth control and reproductive choices are her's to make. I full support that. What I can't understand is how the same people that support her right to choose don't support my right to not help fund it. Birth Control is a perfect example. I believe in cheap readily available birth control and education. I think the Catholic church causes a lot of misery in it's opposition to Birth Control. That is my position. The Catholic church does not agree with me, and chooses to not pay for birth control. I am also very supportive of their choice not to. I can't figure out how the libs think choice is ok for women's reproductive rights but not for the Catholic churches beliefs.

It is epidemic from both conservatives and liberals. They holler and scream about Foredoom, but what they really mean is Freedom as long as it agrees with their viewpoint.

[akihon 129]

the first statement refers to an already born child.

the second does not.

if a woman didn't want to take care of an already born child, she's pretty darn deadbeat too.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Yes, choices like preventative cancer screenings and mammograms. Filthy, slutty choices.

You do understand how government funding of Planned Parenthood works, right?

The article said the state would be offering the other services using state funds through an alternate program.

Personally I don't have an issue funding abortions.. saves on future welfare. I can understand why my religious neighbors don't want to fund something that they feel is an ultimate sin. So.. the state funds women's services through another program that does not offer abortions, abortions remain legal but require payment, and that large segment of the population that view them as murder jobs can rest a little easier that they are not funding them. What's the problem?

the first statement refers to an already born child.

the second does not.

if a woman didn't want to take care of an already born child, she's pretty darn deadbeat too.

Good enough.. Does the guy get a say before the child is born?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yet ANOTHER reason not to move to the Hill billy states.

I doubt you would be able to move if you cannot afford your own abortion. Is there some sort of welfare or gov't subsidy for moving? I am pro choice and I pay for my own choices.

[scotinmass 588]

Good enough.. Does the guy get a say before the child is born?

No. It is only the woman's right to choose. If she chooses to abort a man's child against his wishes she can. If she keeps it against his wishes he has to support it. Sounds fair!