Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

IDemo

(16,926 posts)
Tue May 1, 2012, 12:39 PM May 2012

U.S. appeals court allows Texas to exclude Planned Parenthood

Source: Reuters

AUSTIN, Texas, May 1 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the state of Texas can exclude Planned Parenthood from a state health program for low-income women because the organization performs abortions.

The ruling, by Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversed a lower court ruling Monday in favor of the family planning organization. The decision on Tuesday means the state is free for now to enforce a new rule banning Pla n ned Parenthood from the Women's Health Program, Texas officials said.

"At this point, Planned Parenthood is not an eligible provider in the Women's Health Program," Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, said on Tuesday.

The Women's Health Program, which is part of the federal-state Medicaid program, provides cancer screenings, birth control and other health services to more than 100,000 low-income women.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/usa-abortion-texas-idUSL1E8G15F820120501

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

sinkingfeeling

(51,436 posts)
2. Then demand the entire 5th. vote on it. Or let Texas do without
Tue May 1, 2012, 12:43 PM
May 2012

my federal dollars paying for their program.

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,290 posts)
3. One day?
Tue May 1, 2012, 12:49 PM
May 2012

They managed to do this in one day?

A U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the state of Texas can exclude Planned Parenthood from a state health program for low-income women because the organization performs abortions.

The ruling, by Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversed a lower court ruling Monday in favor of the family planning organization.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
6. Battle of the temporary stays, I think
Tue May 1, 2012, 01:00 PM
May 2012

The District Court Judge stayed Texas's exclusion, and an emergency petition to the Fifth Circuit just happened to land on the desk of a Circuit Court Judge who bought the State's rather spurious argument that the denial of funds for women's health is supposed to reduce the number of abortions. So, the potential abortion counts for more than the actual dying of women.

There was a rather unintendedly humorous passage in the story:

A spokeswoman for Texas Governor Rick Perry said the state will defend Texas law.

"Texas has a long history of protecting life (of the unborn)," spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in a statement.


I note that the reporter had to add the parenthetical, so that foreigners outside the great State of Texas wouldn't get confused by the nonsensical statement that Texas protects life.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
13. For another temporary stay?
Tue May 1, 2012, 01:44 PM
May 2012

First stop may be a full panel in the Fifth Circuit, then an emergency appeal to the Supremes. The Justice assigned to the Fifth Circuit is Scalia, so it may not benefit Planned Parenthood to look for relief from the Supreme Court. The Texas repressives are doubtless eager to get a ruling from Mr. Scalia, and get after oppressing women and denying them health care in earnest.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
14. Looks like the 5th circuit has some repressives, too... The problem either way for Roe v. Wade is...
Tue May 1, 2012, 02:08 PM
May 2012

This is what these cases all lead to being reversed. At this point, even though the USSC hasn't done that, it's being reversed state by state in practice.

They don't have to say abortion is illegal, just put so many barriers that it keeps women who need services from public health care providers or private insurance, from getting the services.

Of course, the rich who can pay out of pocket without going through the maze, or travel to where they can easily get an abortion, have never been affected by any law on abortion or birth control.

They can and have gotten them before Roe v. Wade and would continue to get them if it was overturned. The case we had here of the woman who had to get the T/V ultrasound to get an abortion at PP, if she and her husband had been of sufficient means, could have gone to some private doctor who kept it quiet and had it done. Before Roe v. Wade, that's what the rich did.

Women's reproductive matters have been kept in the public realm for everyone to discuss since the Christian right took over the GOP. Sanctorum's wife had a very late-term abortion to save her life yet he voted to deny it for other women. Because he had the money and they don't. This is a real attack on lower classes.

jimmydwight

(41 posts)
7. This state was hijacked...
Tue May 1, 2012, 01:01 PM
May 2012

This state was hijacked by republicans about 40 years ago. It is corporate owned and operated. Women and Minorities need not apply. Sad.

onenote

(42,581 posts)
8. I think this is the same judge that ordered Holder to explain the president's views on the court's
Tue May 1, 2012, 01:05 PM
May 2012

power to strike to down legislation.

If I'm right, it appears that once again he's decided to wear his partisanship on his sleeve. While the Federal Rules allow a single judge to grant a stay of a lower court order, its fairly unusual to proceed in that manner. Indeed, the rules of appellate procedure (which this judge cited in his one sentence order) specifically state that: (D) A motion under this Rule 8(a)(2) must be filed with the circuit clerk and normally will be considered by a panel of the court. But in an exceptional case in which time requirements make that procedure impracticable, the motion may be made to and considered by a single judge.


Without having seen the pleadings and given that the judge only issued a one-sentence order, its hard to know what the basis would be for finding that this is an "exceptional case in which time requirements" make it impracticable for the stay motion to be ruled on by a three judge panel.

Judi Lynn

(160,449 posts)
15. You're right. Judge Jerry Smith is a Reagan-appointed activist judge.
Tue May 1, 2012, 02:20 PM
May 2012

He referred to feminists as "gaggle of outcasts, misfits and rejects" and referred to the League of Women Voters as the "Plague of Women Voters."

More:
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/Allies-Judge-upset-by-Obama-remarks-not-political-3464607.php

[center][/center]

MaineDem

(18,161 posts)
9. "At this point, Planned Parenthood is not an eligible provider in the Women's Health Program,"
Tue May 1, 2012, 01:14 PM
May 2012

...

But aren't abortions also performed in hospitals/clinics which are, probably, eligible providers in the Women's Health Program?

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»U.S. appeals court allows...