Friday, June 03, 2011

Indiana, the Federal Courts, and the Constitution


“U.S. judge refuses to delay enforcement of Indiana abortion law
1:35 PM, May. 11, 2011
Written by Heather Gillers

A federal judge today denied Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s request that she order the state to hold off on enforcing a new law cutting funds to the health care provider.

Planned Parenthood challenged the constitutionality of the law and filed a restraining order in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis Tuesday—hours after Gov. Mitch Daniels signed it. (The Governor signed the law on May 10th. This story was written and posted May 11th—my addition.)

Judge Tanya Walton Pratt will take more time to consider whether the law itself should stand. Today’s ruling was only on Planned Parenthood’s request for an emergency hold on the law.

In coming weeks, the judge will consider both sides’ arguments and decide by July 1 whether to issue a preliminary injunction barring the state from enforcing the law.

Pratt said from the bench that today’s ruling should not be viewed as an indication of how she will rule on the law’s constitutionality. Allowing the law to go into effect now would not cause irreversible harm, she said, in part because Planned Parenthood has up to a year to bill for Medicaid expenses. Also, she said, the health-care provider also has an emergency fund to help cover costs.

‘This court is not persuaded that (the law) will have a concrete and immediate effect,’ Pratt said.

Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher applauded the decision outside court, saying: ‘I am pleased the state law gets to go into effect as the legislature intended.’

Fisher also said the state has dropped efforts to block approximately $500,000 in federal grant funds per year from going to Planned Parenthood of Indiana because those fund do not flow through the state but through a nonprofit group.

Planned Parenthood gets $3 million a year in federal funds but $1 million of that is entirely the state’s jurisdiction. Fisher’s announcement brings the total amount of funds the state could cut off—if it wins the federal case—down to $1.5 million, most of which is Medicaid funds.

Betty Cockrum, president of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, said the health care provider will make a decision by the end of the week about whether it can continue to serve its 9,300 Medicaid patients between now and when Pratt makes her ruling.

Planned Parenthood originally had estimated that 13 of it 28 health centers around the state could be in financial jeopardy. Cockrum said keeping the $500,000 could help preserve some of those facilities.

The measure, House Bill 1210, passed the legislature last month. The law would cut off about $2 million of the $3 million Planned Parenthood of Indiana receives annually in federal funds and make Indiana the first state to prohibit the use of Medicaid at Planned Parenthood. It also gives Indiana some of the strictest abortion rules in the nation. For example, doctors would be required to tell patients that life begins at fertilization (Which is true! Also known as conception!—my addition) and that a fetus (Also known as an unborn baby!—my addition) can feel pain at or before 20 weeks.

Planned Parenthood and the ACLU argue that forcing doctors to give information—information they claim is not factual or relevant to the patients and can be misleading—violates First Amendment free-speech protections.

The lawsuit also contends that the new law’s defunding provision, by taking effect immediately, would void contracts and grants already in effect, violating the U.S. Constitution’s contract clause. The suit also says that the law imposes an unconstitutional condition on Planned Parenthood by requiring it to choose between performing abortions and receiving non-abortion-related funding, and says that the measure runs afoul of federal Medicaid law.

Daniels’ signature of House Bill 1210 has added to speculation that he will seek the Republican presidential nomination. The move could be viewed as a way to reassure Republican primary voters. Earlier this year, social conservatives criticized the governor for calling for a truce on social issues.”

“‘This court is not persuaded that (the law) will have a concrete and immediate effect,’ Pratt said.”

The above is a quote from the inferior federal court judge who took the court case filed by Planned MURDERHOOD and the ACLU. Although she did not issue an immediate injunction as, it seems, most inferior federal court judges do when the Libertine Left comes calling in court, she did not go far enough. What should she had said if obeying the Constitution of the United States? Something akin to: “I’m sorry, but this inferior federal court does NOT have jurisdiction in this case. A federal suit against a State can NOT Constitutionally be filed in this court. If the plaintiff wants relief, this case must be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court as required by the Constitution of the United States. I wish lawyers knew their Constitutional law! I wish lawyers would follow the Constitution when filing a federal court case!”

“Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher applauded the decision outside court, saying: ‘I am pleased the state law gets to go into effect as the legislature intended.’”

What should the Indiana Solicitor General have said? Something akin to: “Although I am pleased with the initial ruling, this court case does NOT belong in this inferior federal court. The Constitution requires cases where the State is a party to originate in the Supreme Court of the United States. I am requesting that this inferior federal court reject jurisdiction of the case as required by the Constitution. If plaintiff wants to be heard, they need to re-file with the United States Supreme Court. This State is tired of lawyers and inferior federal courts disregarding the Constitutional rights of States!”

For as I’ve said repeatedly, NO inferior federal court judge has jurisdiction over a State. NONE! The Constitution of the United States of America clearly states in Article III, Section 2, ¶ 2: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” Who has jurisdiction when a State is a party to the case? The United States Supreme Court!!! And only the United States Supreme Court until and unless the Constitution is amended!!! An inferior federal court has no such jurisdiction! The inferior federal courts in the United States have NO jurisdiction over States! NONE!!!

It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!! It’s time, it past time to be obedient to the Constitution of the United States!!! It’s time, it is past time to TAKE BACK THE NATION!!!