Judge orders planned parenthood to pay
back state family planning money
by david a. Lieb
associated press writer
a circuit judge has ordered two planned
parenthood branches to repay the state
$668,850 in family planning grants,
upholding a prohibition on state money
going to the affiliates of abortion
providers.
Planned parenthood officials said the
organization would appeal the ruling,
issued may 25 in cole county circuit court
but first publicized tuesday by the
missouri catholic conference.
The decision is at least the third time a
circuit judge has determined planned
parenthood was not entitled to the family
planning money distributed by the state
health department. The state supreme
court overturned two previous rulings
without ever addressing the merits of the
case.
After republicans gained control of both
the house and senate, they stopped funding
family planning grants altogether in the
2004 budget. But the legal dispute
continued over money previously awarded to
planned parenthood.
At issue were grants in the 2000 and 2003
fiscal years to planned parenthood of
kansas and mid-missouri and planned
parenthood of the st. Louis region.
Ray county circuit judge werner moentmann,
who was assigned to the cole county case,
ruled that planned parenthood's
mid-missouri branch must repay the state
$376,800 and the st. Louis branch
$292,050, with 9 percent annual interest
applied to each. Officials from both
branches said they would appeal.
"we believe that we were given legally
binding contracts which we fulfilled - not
only in our obligation to the state, but
also to the patients who came to us
needing comprehensive family planning
services," paula gianino, president of
planned parenthood of the st. Louis
region, said tuesday.
Gov. Matt blunt praised the ruling,
saying it was "very encouraging to see a
court embracing the culture of life that
missourians hold dear."
missouri began funding family planning
grants in the 1994 budget. A few years
later, anti-abortion lawmakers tried to
prevent the money from going to planned
parenthood by inserting restrictive
language in the budget.
That resulted in a series of court
battles, with attorney general jay nixon
at one point defending the health
department's awarding of the grants to
planned parenthood while hiring a private
attorney to represent the legislature's
contention that planned parenthood should
not get the money.
Cole county circuit judge byron kinder
ruled in november 1999 that planned
parenthood must return the family planning
money it received. But in january 2001,
the supreme court ordered kinder to
reconsider based on changes in federal
law.
Kinder again ruled against planned
parenthood. But on appeal, the supreme
court ruled in january 2002 that nixon had
a conflict of interest in defending both
the legislature's restrictions and the
health department's interpretation
allowing money to go to planned
parenthood.
Nixon responded by dropping the case. But
st. Charles resident daniel shipley then
initiated his own challenge of the planned
parenthood grants, which resulted in the
most recent court ruling.
The budget restrictions prohibited family
planning grants from going to
organizations that shared the same or
similar name as an affiliated abortion
provider, or that shared facilities,
expenses, employee wages, equipment or
supplies.
Moentmann ruled the two planned parenthood
groups were barred from getting money on
all of those grounds, determining they
share similar names as their abortion
affiliates, as well as office space,
expenses, employee wages, equipment and
supplies.
"this is great news for all pro-life
taxpayers in the state," said samuel lee
of campaign life missouri, whose statement
was distributed by the catholic
conference. If the ruling stands on
appeal, "missouri will be completely out
of the business of directly or indirectly
subsidizing the abortion industry."
case is daniel shipley v. Ronald cates,
02cv324517.
Joined: 07 Jun 2005 Posts: 528 Location: , Lost in Oz.
Posted: 06-10-05 11:56am
Why is that any worse
than.........................
California court rules catholic charity
must provide birth control coverage
paul elias, associated press writer
tuesday, march 2, 2004
printable version
email this article
(03-02) 00:17 pst san francisco (ap) --
a state supreme court ruling that a roman
catholic charity must provide employees
with birth-control coverage despite its
opposition to contraception "shows no
respect" to california's religious
organizations, a spokeswoman for the
church's policy arm said.
The 6-1 decision monday, the first such
ruling by a state's highest court, could
open the door to mandated insurance
coverage of abortion, said carol hogan,
spokeswoman for the california catholic
conference, which represents the church's
policy position in the state.
While "religious employers" such as
churches are exempt from the requirement
in california, the high court said
catholic charities is no different from
other businesses.
Catholic charities had argued that it,
too, should be exempt.
But the supreme court ruled that the
charity is not a religious employer
because it offers such secular services as
counseling, low-income housing and
immigration services to people of all
faiths, without directly preaching
catholic values.
In fact, justice kathryn werdegar wrote
that a "significant majority" of the
people served by the charity are not
catholic. The court also noted that the
charity employs workers of differing
religions.
The california catholic conference said it
was disappointed with the ruling. "it
shows no respect to our religious
organizations," hogan said.
Experts said the ruling could affect
thousands of workers at church-backed
hospitals and institutions in california
and prompt other states to fashion similar
laws.
California is one of 20 states to require
that all company-provided health plans
must include contraception coverage if the
plans have prescription drug benefits.
The american civil liberties union
applauded the ruling and called it "a
great victory for california women and
reproductive freedom."
justice janice rogers brown was the lone
dissenting judge. Brown wrote that the
legislature's definition of a "religious
employer" is too limiting if it excludes
faith-based nonprofit groups like catholic
charities.
"here we are dealing with an intentional,
purposeful intrusion into a religious
organization's expression of its religious
tenets and sense of mission," brown wrote.
"the government is not accidentally or
incidentally interfering with religious
practice; it is doing so willfully by
making a judgment about what is or is not
a religion."
versions of the law considered in monday's
ruling have been adopted in the 20 states
after lawmakers concluded private employee
prescription plans without contraceptive
benefits discriminated against women.
Civil-rights groups, health-care companies
and catholic organizations filed extensive
position papers with the court. Most
wrangled over the rights of a religion to
practice what it preaches and the newly
acquired rights of thousands of women
employed by church-affiliated groups to be
insured for contraceptives.
Catholic charities has 183 full-time
employees and had a $76 million budget in
california in 2002. It does not demand
that its workers be catholic or share the
church's philosophy.
The 20 states that require private-sector
insurance coverage for prescription
contraceptives are arizona, california,
connecticut, delaware, iowa, georgia,
hawaii, maine, maryland, massachusetts,
missouri, nevada, new hampshire, new
mexico, new york, north carolina, rhode
island, texas, vermont and washington.
if they pay for viagra then
birth control pills should be covered.
If they refuse to pay for any
fertility/sexual dysfunction/birth
control, then I don't see why they can't.
Just be fair and equal about the
discrimination.
i agree with this 100%
now can I have my proof of your claim that
I advocate racism?
The site is not a replacement for professional medical opinion, examination, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your medical doctor or other qualified health professional before starting any new treatment or making any changes to existing treatment. Do not delay seeking or disregard medical advice based on information written by any author on this site. No health questions and information on eHealth Forum is regulated or evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and therefore the information should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease without the supervision of a medical doctor. Posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author, and not the administrators, moderators, or editorial staff and hence eHealth Forum and its principals will accept no liabilities or responsibilities for the statements made.
Schizophreniahealth
This page was last updated on June 11, 2008
