A Federal Court Rules That Utah Can Defund Planned Parenthood
by WILLIAM C. DUNCAN December 24, 2015 4:00 AM - National Review
In the wake of video disclosures earlier this year that Planned Parenthood employees appeared to be engaging in the sale of body parts obtained through abortions, Utah governor Gary Herbert ordered state agencies to end the practice of funneling federal grants to Planned Parenthood’s Utah affiliate.
This required the state to end or not renew four contracts with Planned Parenthood — contracts involving sex education and testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Other states made similar decisions.
But Planned Parenthood of Utah immediately sued, asking for a temporary injunction. Their argument was that the decision to end the contracts was motivated by the governor’s opposition to abortion and had the effect of infringing the Utah affiliate’s constitutional rights to associate with other affiliates and to promote abortion.
As far-fetched as the argument for a constitutional obligation to fund Planned Parenthood and to maintain contracts with them would seem, the group had an initial legal victory at the end of September.
A federal district court issued a terse opinion relying heavily on the idea that accusations stemming from the conduct disclosed in the videos had not been proven. The court assumed that the governor’s motivation for ending the state’s contracts with Planned Parenthood must have been motivated by unconstitutional reasons, and the judge ordered Herbert “to state in writing a legitimate basis” for defunding, declining to renew, or not issuing a contract to the organization.
Of course, this sounded ominously like a federal judge announcing a constitutional right of a vendor to the government’s business. It would have required the state to implicitly approve of activities the governor — and probably the overwhelming majority of citizens of the Utah — find shocking and reprehensible.
Supporters of the Herbert’s decision recognized a simple reality: Sending a check to Planned Parenthood in the wake of the video disclosures would be understood as either approval of the behavior of the employees in the videos or at least belief that it was not bad enough to justify distancing themselves from it.
Similarly, any announcement that an individual would no longer donate to Planned Parenthood because of the videos would be understood as an expression of disapproval.
The district court’s decision had the effect of denying the state of Utah, uniquely, the opportunity to express this kind of disapproval.
SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428975/utah-planned-parenthood-defunding-fight
by WILLIAM C. DUNCAN December 24, 2015 4:00 AM - National Review
In the wake of video disclosures earlier this year that Planned Parenthood employees appeared to be engaging in the sale of body parts obtained through abortions, Utah governor Gary Herbert ordered state agencies to end the practice of funneling federal grants to Planned Parenthood’s Utah affiliate.
This required the state to end or not renew four contracts with Planned Parenthood — contracts involving sex education and testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Other states made similar decisions.
But Planned Parenthood of Utah immediately sued, asking for a temporary injunction. Their argument was that the decision to end the contracts was motivated by the governor’s opposition to abortion and had the effect of infringing the Utah affiliate’s constitutional rights to associate with other affiliates and to promote abortion.
As far-fetched as the argument for a constitutional obligation to fund Planned Parenthood and to maintain contracts with them would seem, the group had an initial legal victory at the end of September.
A federal district court issued a terse opinion relying heavily on the idea that accusations stemming from the conduct disclosed in the videos had not been proven. The court assumed that the governor’s motivation for ending the state’s contracts with Planned Parenthood must have been motivated by unconstitutional reasons, and the judge ordered Herbert “to state in writing a legitimate basis” for defunding, declining to renew, or not issuing a contract to the organization.
Of course, this sounded ominously like a federal judge announcing a constitutional right of a vendor to the government’s business. It would have required the state to implicitly approve of activities the governor — and probably the overwhelming majority of citizens of the Utah — find shocking and reprehensible.
Supporters of the Herbert’s decision recognized a simple reality: Sending a check to Planned Parenthood in the wake of the video disclosures would be understood as either approval of the behavior of the employees in the videos or at least belief that it was not bad enough to justify distancing themselves from it.
Similarly, any announcement that an individual would no longer donate to Planned Parenthood because of the videos would be understood as an expression of disapproval.
The district court’s decision had the effect of denying the state of Utah, uniquely, the opportunity to express this kind of disapproval.
SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428975/utah-planned-parenthood-defunding-fight
No comments:
Post a Comment