Skip to comments.SCOTUS: Arizona can't withhold Planned Parenthood funds over abortion
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 ...
The hell they say. Check the 10th amendment.
Why should anyone follow SCOTUS? Obama ignores the other branches all the time.
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
why cannot government determine where taxpayer money goes? pp has no higher claim to that money than even the government.
Oh please. Now we have corporations entitled to taxpayers money, this is ridiculous
You probably could get federal funds for that.
I miss America, don’t y’all?
Why is a private group getting tax money?
They include such things as:
The necessity to wage war when the alternatives are worse
The death penalty for extraordinary crimes
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.
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.
Do all States currently take Federal Medicaid funds? Would you move to a State that did not take any Federal Medicaid funds?
Surely you recognize that there is no place for that here.
Kelo already showed that they're entitled to use eminent domain (citing
projected increase of [tax] revenue as the public use).
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.
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.
Pull out of medicaid.
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!!!
You beat me to it. Sloppy reporting.
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.
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.
This wasn't a ruling, just a denial of cert. And not one Justice dissented.
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.
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.