you're reading...
Christianity, Politics, Religion

Kansas Judge: Planned Parenthood Keeps Funding… For Now.

Even if a statute does not appear unconstitutional on its face, it is nevertheless invalid if enacted for an improper discriminatory purpose, and the evidence before the court is that it was enacted precisely for this purpose, Marten said. (LINK)

These are the words of the judge in a ruling granting Planned Parenthood an injunction against Kansas’ recent law defunding the healthcare provider.  According to the judge, Kansas lawmakers were potentially in violation of both the first and the fourteenth amendments.  But beyond that, he opined,  it goes against the constitutional spirit of the law because it appears to be targeted legislation designed to punish a group for their controversial — but still legal — practices and beliefs.

That’s the crux of the matter, and something we non-believers need to remember to bring up in print and conversation.  These lawmakers, those who have brought literally hundreds of similar bills before state legislatures this year, are doing nothing less than trying to find alternative ways to ban abortion.  And abortion is absolutely legal in the U.S.  What they are doing is functionally no different than organized crime.  They are using their positions of influence within state and local government bodies to create their own brand of local justice — despite flying in the face of prior Supreme Court rulings and established federal law.

The description of the legal battle is eerily colonial:

Monday’s hearing was the first legal test of the statute. Planned Parenthood is challenging its constitutionality based on the Supremacy Clause, which prohibits states from imposing conditions of eligibility on federal programs that are not required by federal law.

In other words, the Supremacy Clause — in the Constitution that the Tea Baggers and Fundamentalists so love to cite — is a very direct and unequivocal a priori ruling that whenever a state and federal law butt heads, the federal law wins.

The Kansas ruling, if it is upheld by the Supreme Court, has the potential to have long reaching effects for this type of state legislation.  In effect, it would provide precedent at a national level for throwing out similar laws in all states.  For the forseeable future, it would make it very difficult for any state to hinder a woman’s access to healthcare at any provider that also offers abortion services.

This is one of those cases that needs to be watched very closely.  The injunction ruling is a clear call to challenge similar laws in other states.  It could represent a tremendous victory for progressives, and significantly more than a slap on the wrist for Christian bigots and haters attempting to legislate their religion.



6 thoughts on “Kansas Judge: Planned Parenthood Keeps Funding… For Now.

  1. I can’t think of a good reason to have Planned Parenthood abortion federally funded. Why would I want to have my tax dollars going to something I think is immoral? Medically necessary abortion? Yes, that should be covered by medical coverage, but non-medical? Nope. Not on my dime. Should sex education of Planned Parenthood get federal funding? Sure, but not non-medically necessary abortions.

    Sorry, I see no reason why being legal=federal funding.

    I really think people need to learn the difference between legal and moral, as well as legal and eligible for funding.

    Posted by Alison | August 2, 2011, 6:11 pm
  2. The short answer, which is the only one I’m going to give you at this time, is that you have no clue how American federal funding works, especially with regard to the medical field.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | August 2, 2011, 6:31 pm
  3. Bill, I’m sorry I kinda flew off the cuff there.

    I just researched it and Planned Parent does not receive federal funding for abortions. Women have to pay out of pocket for use of the uterus vacuum.

    You know how I feel about topics like this. I’m going to have to start reading these posts with my hands tied behind my back and do more research before posting.

    Posted by Alison | August 2, 2011, 8:18 pm
  4. Oh, and BTW, I know how American economics works………………… it doesn’t

    Posted by Alison | August 2, 2011, 8:22 pm
  5. Alison, that’s the point. And it’s what I said, explicitly, in the article. I’m not sure what your issue is on this one.

    (However… abortion is a legal procedure in the U.S. and there’s no constitutional or legal justification for NOT funding it, even if you don’t like it. So this is doubly not an issue.)

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | August 2, 2011, 8:29 pm
  6. jebus christ on a banana tree hamby, I said I jumped the gun and was sorry for doing so.

    I don’t see where you said abortion wasn’t federally funded in the article.

    I still maintain that it shouldn’t be federally funded. I’m not paying for another woman’s abortion unless it’s medically necessary and I shouldn’t have to as I see it as immoral.

    But I was wrong about federal funding and shouldn’t have said anything in the first place.

    Posted by Alison | August 2, 2011, 9:01 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: