Posted on 08/07/2015 5:35:49 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Lefts commitment to Planned Parenthood is extraordinary. Not only are Democratic politicians vowing to shut down the government, if necessary, to keep more than $500 million flowing to the organization that is willing to provide less crunchy abortions to maintain the supply of intact baby body parts, some leftists are now claiming that there may be insurmountable legal hurdles to defunding the abortion giant. In other words, even if Republicans can ram legislation through Congress and past the president, the courts will keep the money flowing.
Their argument rests on Medicaid. While it would be fairly simple for Congress to cut off Planned Parenthoods share of grants under the Title X family-planning program, approximately 75 percent of Planned Parenthoods government funding comes from Medicaid typically through reimbursements for services rendered and Medicaid contains a provision protecting patient choice in qualified providers. As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals put it (quoting the relevant statute):
State Medicaid programs must allow Medicaid recipients to obtain care from any [provider] qualified to perform the service or services required, and . . . enrollment in a Medicaid managed-care plan shall not restrict the choice of the qualified [provider] from whom the individual may receive family planning services.
Relying on this provision, the Ninth and Seventh Circuits have struck down state efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. The Seventh Circuit held that the defunding law excludes Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for a reason unrelated to its fitness to provide medical services, violating its patients statutory right to obtain medical care from the qualified provider of their choice.
Yet these cases involved a conflict between a state statute and the federal Medicaid law, where Planned Parenthood could rely on the Constitutions supremacy clause to argue that the federal law controls. If Congress can push through a properly drafted federal defunding law one that effectively amended the Medicaid statute the supremacy-clause argument would be unavailable. The federal government is simply better positioned to apportion Medicaid dollars than the states.
It is settled law that the governments refusal to subsidize abortion does not impermissibly burden a womans right to obtain an abortion, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has noted.
But even then, Planned Parenthood would likely push forward with its legal challenge, falling back on the argument that defunding Planned Parenthood would impose an unconstitutional condition on its First Amendment right to promote abortion and associate with abortion providers. The unconstitutional-conditions doctrine is premised on the notion that what a government cannot compel, it should not be able to coerce. As a general matter, the doctrine prevents the federal government from placing draconian speech and association-related restrictions on the receipt of federal funds.
Yet federal courts of appeal have been largely unsympathetic to this argument in the abortion context, with both the Fifth and the Seventh Circuits holding that it didnt apply even to state defunding bills. The reason is simple:
It is settled law that the governments refusal to subsidize abortion does not impermissibly burden a womans right to obtain an abortion. If a ban on public funding for abortion does not directly violate the abortion right, then Indianas ban on other forms of public subsidy for abortion providers cannot be an unconstitutional condition that indirectly violates the right.
While current law does not allow the government to place an undue burden on the right to an abortion, the law does not require that the government favor abortion access or even to remain neutral. The federal government can, as a matter of policy and practice, prefer life and fund only private family-planning programs that reject abortion.
Given this precedent, a well-drafted law would cut off all Title X funding to any entity that promotes or provides referrals for abortion and would deny any and all Medicaid funds to providers who do the same. By functionally amending Medicaid while not affirmatively blocking access to abortions, the bill should survive legal scrutiny.
While there should not be any valid legal barrier to defunding Planned Parenthood, that does not mean that there will not be an effective legal barrier. Bitter experience with Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and, most recently, Obergefell v. Hodges teaches us that a majority of the Supreme Court will often do what is necessary to establish the religion of radical sexual autonomy. Never forget Justice Kennedys magical mystery passage: At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
A court that can write those words with a straight face is a court that cant be entrusted to interpret regulations, statutes, or the Constitution in a manner consistent with reason and logic. Yes, applying the Constitution and current legal precedent, Congress can defund Planned Parenthood. But can the Constitution and precedent survive the Supreme Court?
David French is an attorney and a staff writer at National Review.
When Americans regain control of the government, and we will, the first thing we need to do is put these so called “judges” and “courts” back in their place. They have grown way too powerful. America was never intended to be like this.
The honest truth is that our current federal judges will soon find the right to a tax-funded abortion in the same place they found the right to marry a person of the same sex.
What a load of crap. The power of Congress to fund or not fund is supreme.
L
or perhaps to even permit it.
The Court has seen the way the Congresional wind is blowing and used the opportunity to ally with the Executive to strip the Legislative branch of its power while simultaneously losing its own power to the Executive.
The Government of the Unites States now consists in reality of an authoritarian President with a Judicial Branch to legitimize and enfocre his will and an advisory council composed of increasingly irrelevant Senators and Representatives.
The next step should be to send legislation to the president to invalidate the Supreme Court's recent homo "marriage" legislation and their rewriting of Obamacare legislation. The legislation should include a warning to the Court that any more straying from the text of the Constitution will will be met with impeachment proceedings of the offending members.
So the 18 trillion dollar debt is actually the fault of Congress.
Along with that and the Courts of Injustice, the next executive branch will only get so much done if the Constitution is followed or will they be able to use the Constitution to do what no one has done against the current administration?
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.