Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

Indiana ruling signals tough legal fight for Planned Parenthood

A federal judge refused to order an injunction on Wednesday against a first-in-the-nation law signed by Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels that cuts funding to Planned Parenthood.

By Staff writer / May 11, 2011

Demonstrators carry signs outside Planned Parenthood in Omaha, Neb., on April 14. Planned Parenthood CEO Jill June announced plans to build 12 new facilities in the Midwest even as the organization faced funding cuts in Indiana.

Nati Harnik/AP/file


A federal judge on Wednesday refused to stop the implementation of Indiana's first-in-the-nation law to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, hinting at the potential difficulties ahead for the organization as it challenges the law in court.

Skip to next paragraph

As the nation's leading provider of abortions, Planned Parenthood has become a top target for conservatives in statehouses and in Congress. The Republican-controlled US House unsuccessfully sought to zero funding for the organization, and other states are considering Indiana-like laws.

For advocates of Planned Parenthood, the prospect of other states following suit is disastrous. They argue that Indiana's decision to deny Planned Parenthood $1.4 million in Medicaid money could leave thousands of women, particularly low-income residents, without access to vital health-care services.

That argument, however, appears to have had little success in court. In the past, for example, courts have upheld state laws that have had the effect of increasing driving distances to abortion clinics. On Wednesday, federal District Court Judge Tonya Walton Pratt refused to issue an injunction against the Indiana law, saying Planned Parenthood couldn't support its claim that it would suffer irreparable harm if the law took effect immediately.

With other Republican-held legislatures poised to follow Indiana's lead, the case points to the potential for a recasting of women's health services in several states nationwide.

Would the law limit access?

The aggregate result could ultimately affect the ability of some American women to get the care they want, says Beth Burkstrand-Reid, a professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law in Lincoln.

"The judgment about how laws impact availability is extremely complex and to ... say, 'There's another provider out there,' may be to obscure all of the intangibles that go into accessing reproductive-health services," says Professor Burkstrand-Reid. "A suitable alternative is in the eyes of the beholder, and what's happening around the country is we have politicians and judges making determinations about what is a suitable level of available health services."

For his part, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) cites a survey that concluded that women in all 92 of the state's counties will continue to have "readily available" access to reproductive-health services, even if the state stops Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. "We will take any actions necessary to ensure that vital medical care is, if anything, more widely available than before," Governor Daniels said.

According to Jane Jankowski, Daniels's press secretary, state health and human service agencies reported that there are women's health centers that don't provide abortions in proximity to all of Planned Parenthood's 28 Indiana locations. "This [law] isn't going to affect anybody's health care," she says.


Read Comments

View reader comments | Comment on this story