Federal judge stops Texas law on women's health [Orders funding of Planned Parenthood]

Associated Press ^ | Apr 30, 2012 1:31 PM EDT | CHRIS TOMLINSON

[Hunton Peck]

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A federal judge in Austin has stopped Texas from banning Planned Parenthood from participating in the state's Women's Health Program.

Judge Lee Yeakel ruled Monday there is sufficient evidence the state law is unconstitutional. He imposed an injunction against....

The law passed last year by the Republican-controlled Legislature forbids state agencies from providing funds to an organization affiliated with abortion providers.

[Izzy Dunne]

passed last year by the Republican-controlled Legislature

I'd be interested to know the number of times 'Republican-controlled" appears in AP articles, vs. the number of times "Democratic-controlled" appears.

[Mrs. Don-o]

‘Splain to me how a Federal judge can tell a state they must pump state resources ino a provider they have chosen not to fund.

[ScottinVA]

The “judge” ruled it “unconstitutional.”

Again, how is NOT funding an abortion mill “unconstitutional?” Where is it enshrined in the U.S. Constitution that the slaughter of babies is a protected act?

Or maybe I’m just missing something...

[Lurking Libertarian]

Biographical Directory of Federal Judges
Yeakel, Earl Leroy III
Born 1945 in Oklahoma City, OK

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
Nominated by George W. Bush on May 1, 2003, to a seat vacated by James R. Nowlin. Confirmed by the Senate on July 28, 2003, and received commission on July 29, 2003.

Education:
University of Texas, B.A., 1966
University of Texas School of Law, J.D., 1969
University of Virginia School of Law, LL.M., 2001

Professional Career:
U.S. Marine Corps, 1967-1970
Private practice, Austin, Texas, 1969-1998
Chief justice, Texas Court of Appeals Third District, 1998
Justice, Texas Court of Appeals Third District, 1998-2003

[vette6387]

George W. Bush, the gift that keeps on giving! He’s the one “it’s my turn candidate” that actually won, and in so doing, the rest of us lost.

[Responsibility2nd]

Thank you.

This is just another reason why I won’t vote for a RINO based on Court Appointments.

All our courts are gone. From local to Federal to the Supremes... All liberal.

Now lets see if Rick and the conservatives in our state House and Senate can give this liberal judge the finger and ignore his ruling.

[mosaicwolf]

"Now lets see if Rick and the conservatives in our state House and Senate can give this liberal judge the finger and ignore his ruling."

I wonder who this Federal Judge thinks will enforce his ruling?

[Hunton Peck]

“‘Splain to me how a Federal judge can tell a state they must pump state resources ino a provider they have chosen not to fund.”

I can’t. Since the article is so short, much excerpting was needed, but it says the plaintiff’s are PP clinics that purportedly don’t perform abortions themselves and claim the law violates their freedom of speech and association. How they got a judge to buy that, I can’t imagine.

[Hunton Peck]

The article has been expanded now, which I guess means I can post more of it:

"The court is particularly influenced by the potential for immediate loss of access to necessary medical services by several thousand Texas women," Yeakel wrote in his ruling. "The record before the court at this juncture reflects uncertainty as to the continued viability of the Texas Women's Health Program."

Texas officials have said that if the state is forced to include Planned Parenthood, they will likely shut down the program that serves basic health care and contraception to 130,000 poor women.

That sounds like it's addressed to the immediate harm requirement for a preliminary injunction, but doesn't give much of a clue as to how he thinks the plaintiffs' rights would be impaired.

[harpu]

Abbott will appeal, and win. There is nothing the feds can make a state do if a state chooses to fund, or not to fund with exclusively state resources. However, if the state’s resources are co-mingled with fed resources, then the feds have some say so.

[trapped_in_LA]

“However, if the state’s resources are co-mingled with fed resources, then the feds have some say so.”

I think this is the key to the ruling. Most likely there is some federal funding co-mingled in with the state money and some Congressional mandated spending requirements. How this raises to the level of “unconstitutional” though is beyond me. The problem with the states accepting federal funds is that once they do, no matter if they refuse the funds later on, they must continue with the federally mandated spending in some cases. Texas may not win the appeal if this is true.

[RightWingConspirator]

It doesn’t surprise me a bit to find that this nitwit is a Teasipper.

[bluetick]

The legislature should tell the judge “That’s a nice opinion. Now let’s see you enforce it.”