Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS: Arizona can't withhold Planned Parenthood funds over abortion
Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services published in the Arizona Daily Star ^ | 24 Feb | Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

Posted on 03/05/2014 10:28:27 AM PST by mbarker12474

February 24, 2014 9:33 am • By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services 17

PHOENIX — Arizona cannot cut off family planning funding to Planned Parenthood simply because the organization also provides abortions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this morning.

Without comment the justices rejected... privately financed anti-abortion group to overturn lower court rulings ...

Both Arizona and federal laws already bar....

But the state,... participation in the federal Medicaid program, ... federal government pays 90 percent....

Medicaid law ... has included Planned Parenthood.

... Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, who sponsored the legislation, ...

... Appellate Judge Marsha Berzon said ...... any qualified provider. ...

Attorney General Tom Horne,...

(Excerpt) Read more at azstarnet.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: abortion; arizona; medicaid; plannedparenthood; scotus
Hmmmm.... Okay.... but can Eric Holder give Jan Brewer permission to ignore the Supreme Court ruling and not dispense funds?
1 posted on 03/05/2014 10:28:28 AM PST by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

The hell they say. Check the 10th amendment.


2 posted on 03/05/2014 10:33:45 AM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Why should anyone follow SCOTUS? Obama ignores the other branches all the time.


3 posted on 03/05/2014 10:33:47 AM PST by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

So..., if I put a bowl of free condoms on the desk in the lobby, I can get government funding for whatever my political agenda might be. Because I’m offering “family planning”. Interesting


4 posted on 03/05/2014 10:33:49 AM PST by thorvaldr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

why cannot government determine where taxpayer money goes? pp has no higher claim to that money than even the government.


5 posted on 03/05/2014 10:33:49 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Oh please. Now we have corporations entitled to taxpayers money, this is ridiculous


6 posted on 03/05/2014 10:35:30 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thorvaldr

You probably could get federal funds for that.


7 posted on 03/05/2014 10:35:54 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

I miss America, don’t y’all?


8 posted on 03/05/2014 10:36:11 AM PST by backwoods-engineer (Blog: www.BackwoodsEngineer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474

Why is a private group getting tax money?


9 posted on 03/05/2014 10:41:48 AM PST by Ray76 (How modern liberals think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mbarker12474
We recognize that all government functions involve an element of force and sometimes require what we call “dreadful necessities”, those actions and activities that we as individuals find repugnant but the realities of imperfect politics and an imperfect world sometime require.

They include such things as:

• The necessity to wage war when the alternatives are worse
• The death penalty for extraordinary crimes
• Abortion
• Taxation

Dreadful necessities are to fall on all residents equally or to be so arranged as to not force individuals with strong moral objections to support.

For example, abortion, people who see this as an absolute woman's right will never agree with people who see it as murder. Politically there is no solution to this dilemma if everyone is forced to either support or repudiate the same side. One possible solution is:

Allow taxpayers opposed to abortion to withhold their tax dollars from being spent in support of those entities performing them. Specifically, allow individual taxpayers to block the use of their own personal tax dollars as funding that would otherwise be used to “perform, support, provide facilities and supplies for, or promote abortion of healthy babies".

Or require a positive action to fund abortions, allow taxpayers who support abortion to be the ones who fund it using a tax form tic box modeled on the Presidential Election Campaign fund:

Abortion on Demand Fund

Check here if you or your spouse, if filing jointly, want $3 to go the this fund.
Checking a box below will not change your taxes or refund.

[ ] You [ ] Spouse

Similar arrangements can be made on most “hot button” issues.

10 posted on 03/05/2014 10:48:13 AM PST by null and void ( Obama is Law-Less because Republican "leaders" are BALL-LESS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Bad headline, and confusingly edited article.

First off, SCOTUS did not issue any ruling. They denied, without comment or dissent, Arizona's request that they hear the case. That does leave the lower courts' rulings in place, but sets no precedent.

As to the basis for the lower court's ruling, let me quote a bit more of the original article:

Both Arizona and federal laws already bar the use of public funds for abortions that are not medically necessary.

But the state, as part of its participation in the federal Medicaid program, provides family planning services for needy women. The federal government pays 90 percent, with the state covering the balance.

Medicaid law also permits eligible women to choose from any qualified provider, which has included Planned Parenthood.

In 2012, lawmakers amended the law to say any organization that also provides abortions cannot be a "qualified provider." Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, who sponsored the legislation, said any money the government gives Planned Parenthood to pay for other expenses frees up funds for abortions.

That argument did not wash with lower courts. Appellate Judge Marsha Berzon said the issue comes down to a simple fact: Federal law allows those enrolled in Medicaid, which includes the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, to get the services they need from any qualified provider. And she said there is no evidence that Planned Parenthood medical staffers are not "qualified."

As to the Tenth Amendment issue, Arizona can stop taking the federal money that funds 90% of Medicaid, and can then do whatever it wants. If it wants the Feds to cover 90%, they have to follow the federal rules.

11 posted on 03/05/2014 10:50:49 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Do all States currently take Federal Medicaid funds? Would you move to a State that did not take any Federal Medicaid funds?


12 posted on 03/05/2014 10:57:25 AM PST by joseph20 (...to ourselves and our Posterity...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
As to the Tenth Amendment issue, Arizona can stop taking the federal money that funds 90% of Medicaid, and can then do whatever it wants. If it wants the Feds to cover 90%, they have to follow the federal rules.

The only problem there is that apparently Arizona can't prevent the federal government from taking the money from Arizonans in the first place with which they are using as a carrot. That's just plain evil.
13 posted on 03/05/2014 11:00:16 AM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
There you go again . . . injecting accuracy and measured, rational analysis in the face of mindless fury borne of ignorance and emotion.

Surely you recognize that there is no place for that here.

14 posted on 03/05/2014 11:00:27 AM PST by DSH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Oh please. Now we have corporations entitled to taxpayers money, this is ridiculous

Kelo already showed that they're entitled to use eminent domain (citing projected increase of [tax] revenue as the public use).

15 posted on 03/05/2014 11:05:23 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

fine give pp one dollar. pp doesn’t get to demand how much govt has to give them. qualified providers don’t all get the same amounts.


16 posted on 03/05/2014 11:05:51 AM PST by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
As to the Tenth Amendment issue, Arizona can stop taking the federal money that funds 90% of Medicaid, and can then do whatever it wants. If it wants the Feds to cover 90%, they have to follow the federal rules.

Which is a catch 22. You pay the taxes for the 90%. If all conservative states then refuse medicare, the liberal states will continue the tax and pocket the cash for their own bureaucracies (using whatever farsical political argument to make their base think it's okay).

In a perfect world, states would refuse the subsidies and political pressure would force the feds to change. In reality, if the states refused the money the people would elect locals who would take the money. We get the government we deserve, sadly.

17 posted on 03/05/2014 11:12:20 AM PST by cizinec ("Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Pull out of medicaid.


18 posted on 03/05/2014 11:13:42 AM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

Soto-Mayor, Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts and Kennedy will always tag-team us on social issues. THis is no longer a COnservative Court.

Muchas Gracias Jorge El Segundo!!!


19 posted on 03/05/2014 11:15:38 AM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
First off, SCOTUS did not issue any ruling. They denied, without comment or dissent, Arizona's request that they hear the case.

You beat me to it. Sloppy reporting.

20 posted on 03/05/2014 11:23:13 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; ZULU

Yeah, and that appears to be the root of the problem. The states (and we the people) would all be a lot better off if they told the feds to shove their blood money and the strings attached. We’d rather retain our freedom, thankyouverymuch. And where do the feds get that money anyway? They rob it from the taxpayers. It’s tyranny.


21 posted on 03/05/2014 1:00:39 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Lurking Libertarian

I keep thinking that that Convention of the States to adopt specific amendments as outlined by Mark Levin in the Liberty Amendments might be the best way to go.


22 posted on 03/05/2014 1:08:46 PM PST by ZULU (Magua is sitting in the Oval Office. Ted Cruz/Phil Robertson in 2016.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ZULU
Soto-Mayor, Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer, Roberts and Kennedy will always tag-team us on social issues. THis is no longer a COnservative Court. Muchas Gracias Jorge El Segundo!!!

This wasn't a ruling, just a denial of cert. And not one Justice dissented.

23 posted on 03/05/2014 1:20:46 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy

Screw Roberts and his merry band of robbers. They take from everybody and keep it for themselves.

As Andrew Jackson said: “(Chief Justice) Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.


24 posted on 03/05/2014 1:24:59 PM PST by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

25 posted on 03/05/2014 7:43:40 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Screw the farmers. I can get everything I need at the grocery store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson