thomas more society “friend of the court” brief for indiana legislators to defund planned...
Post on 07-Apr-2018
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
1/26
No. 11-2464
In the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc., et al.,Plaintiffs-Appellees,
vs.
Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, et al.,Defendants-Appellants.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of Indiana
Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-9630 TWP-TAB(Honorable Tanya Walton Pratt)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BRIEFAMICUS CURIAEOF MEMBERS OF THE INDIANA
GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AND IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL
Paul Benjamin Linton Eric Allan KochSpecial Counsel The Koch Law Firm, P.C.Thomas More Society 520 North Walnut Street921 Keystone Avenue Bloomington, Indiana 47404
Northbrook, Illinois 60062 (812) 337-3120 (tel)(847) 291-3848 (tel)
Thomas BrejchaPresident & Chief CounselThomas More Society29 S. La Salle Street Suite 440Chicago, Illinois 60603(312) 782-1680 (tel)
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
2/26
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No. 11-2464
Short Caption: Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc., et al., vs. Commr of the IndianaState Dept of Health, et al.
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosurestatement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosurestatement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer inthis court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any materialchanges in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contentsof the partys main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for anyinforamtion that is not applicable if this form is used.
[ ] PLEASE CHECK HERE IF ANY INFORMATION ON THIS FORM IS NEW ORREVISED AND INDICATE WHICH INFORMATION IS NEW OR REVISED
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you mustprovide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Counsel represents amici curiae, Members of the Indiana General Assembly, whose names are listed on thefollowing page.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (includingproceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in thiscourt:
Paul Benjamin Linton Eric Allan Koch Thomas BrejchaSpecial Counsel The Koch Law Firm President & Chief CounselThomas More Society 520 North Walnut Street Thomas More Society921 Keystone Avenue Bloomington, Indiana 47404 29 S. La Salle Street Suite 440Northbrook, Illinois 60062 Chicago, Illinois 60603
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation: N/A
i) identify all its parent corporations, if any; andii) list any publicly held company that owns 10$ or more of the partys or amicus stock
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Signature: s/Paul Benjamin Linton Date: August 3, 2011Attorneys Printed Name: Paul Benjamin Linton
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d): YES
Address: 921 Keystone AvenueNorthbrook, Illinois 60062
Phone Number: (847) 291-3848 Fax Number: (847) 412-1594E-Mail Address: PBLCONLAW@AOL.COM
i
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
3/26
List ofAmici Curiae
Sen. David Long Rep. Brian BosmaSen. Edward Ed Charbonneau Rep. Donald Don LeheSen. Brandt Hershman Rep. Douglas Doug GutweinSen. Carlin Yoder Rep. Timothy Tim Wesco
Sen. Dennis Kruse Rep. Rebecca KubackiSen. James Jim Banks Rep. William Bill FriendSen. Travis Holdman Rep. Richard Rich McClainSen. James Jim Buck Rep. Jeffrey Jeff ThompsonSen. Constance Connie Lawson Rep. Kevin MahanSen. Doug Eckerty Rep. Paul Eric Turner Sen. Michael Mike Delph Rep. Billy Joe Bill DavisSen. Scott Schneider Rep. Heath VanNatter Sen. James Jim Merritt, Jr. Rep. Gregory SteurwaldSen. Patricia Pat Miller Rep. James Jim BairdSen. Richard Michael Mike Young Rep. Bruce BordersSen. Richard Bray Rep. Robert Bob HeatonSen. Greg Walker Rep. Timothy Tim NeeseSen. Jean Leising Rep. Wesley Wes Culver Sen. Johnny Nugent Rep. Daniel Dan LeonardSen. Brent Steele Rep. Richard Dick DodgeSen. James Jim Smith, Jr. Rep. David YardeSen. James Jim Tomes Rep. Robert Bob Cherry
Rep. Thomas Tom KnollmanRep. Charles Woody BurtonRep. Milo SmithRep. Matthew Matt UbelhorRep. Mark MessmerRep. Eric KochRep. Randall Randy FryeRep. Judson Jud McMillanRep. David Dave CheathamRep. Rhonda RhoadsRep. Rep. Edward Ed Clere
Rep. Steven Steve DavissonRep. Susan Sue EllspermannRep. Ronald Ron BaconRep. Matthew Matt LehmenRep. Cynthia Cindy NoeRep. Michael Mike SpeedyRep. Robert Bob BehningRep. David Dave Frizzell
ii
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
4/26
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No. 11-2464
Short Caption: Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc., et al., vs. Commr of the IndianaState Dept of Health, et al.
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosurestatement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosurestatement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer inthis court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any materialchanges in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contentsof the partys main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for anyinforamtion that is not applicable if this form is used.
[ ] PLEASE CHECK HERE IF ANY INFORMATION ON THIS FORM IS NEW ORREVISED AND INDICATE WHICH INFORMATION IS NEW OR REVISED
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you mustprovide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Counsel represents amici curiae, Members of the Indiana General Assembly, whose names are listed on thefollowing page.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (includingproceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in thiscourt:
Paul Benjamin Linton Eric Allan Koch Thomas BrejchaSpecial Counsel The Koch Law Firm President & Chief CounselThomas More Society 520 North Walnut Street Thomas More Society921 Keystone Avenue Bloomington, Indiana 47404 29 S. La Salle Street Suite 440Northbrook, Illinois 60062 Chicago, Illinois 60603
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation: N/A
i) identify all its parent corporations, if any; andii) list any publicly held company that owns 10$ or more of the partys or amicus stock
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Signature: s/Eric Allan Koch Date: August 3, 2011Attorneys Printed Name: Eric Allan Koch
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d): NO
Address: 520 North Walnut StreetBloomington, Indiana 47404
Phone Number: (812) 337-3120 Fax Number: (812) 330-4305E-Mail Address: eric@thekochlawfirm.com
iii
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
5/26
List ofAmici Curiae
Sen. David Long Rep. Brian BosmaSen. Edward Ed Charbonneau Rep. Donald Don LeheSen. Brandt Hershman Rep. Douglas Doug GutweinSen. Carlin Yoder Rep. Timothy Tim Wesco
Sen. Dennis Kruse Rep. Rebecca KubackiSen. James Jim Banks Rep. William Bill FriendSen. Travis Holdman Rep. Richard Rich McClainSen. James Jim Buck Rep. Jeffrey Jeff ThompsonSen. Constance Connie Lawson Rep. Kevin MahanSen. Doug Eckerty Rep. Paul Eric Turner Sen. Michael Mike Delph Rep. Billy Joe Bill DavisSen. Scott Schneider Rep. Heath VanNatter Sen. James Jim Merritt, Jr. Rep. Gregory SteurwaldSen. Patricia Pat Miller Rep. James Jim BairdSen. Richard Michael Mike Young Rep. Bruce BordersSen. Richard Bray Rep. Robert Bob HeatonSen. Greg Walker Rep. Timothy Tim NeeseSen. Jean Leising Rep. Wesley Wes Culver Sen. Johnny Nugent Rep. Daniel Dan LeonardSen. Brent Steele Rep. Richard Dick DodgeSen. James Jim Smith, Jr. Rep. David YardeSen. James Jim Tomes Rep. Robert Bob Cherry
Rep. Thomas Tom KnollmanRep. Charles Woody BurtonRep. Milo SmithRep. Matthew Matt UbelhorRep. Mark MessmerRep. Eric KochRep. Randall Randy FryeRep. Judson Jud McMillanRep. David Dave CheathamRep. Rhonda RhoadsRep. Rep. Edward Ed Clere
Rep. Steven Steve DavissonRep. Susan Sue EllspermannRep. Ronald Ron BaconRep. Matthew Matt LehmenRep. Cynthia Cindy NoeRep. Michael Mike SpeedyRep. Robert Bob BehningRep. David Dave Frizzell
iv
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
6/26
CIRCUIT RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Appellate Court No. 11-2464
Short Caption: Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc., et al., vs. Commr of the IndianaState Dept of Health, et al.
To enable the judges to determine whether recusal is necessary or appropriate, an attorney for a non-governmental party or amicus curiae, or a private attorney representing a government party, must furnish a disclosurestatement providing the following information in compliance with Circuit Rule 26.1 and Fed. R. App. P. 26.1.
The Court prefers that the disclosure statement be filed immediately following docketing; but, the disclosurestatement must be filed within 21 days of docketing or upon the filing of a motion, response, petition, or answer inthis court, whichever occurs first. Attorneys are required to file an amended statement to reflect any materialchanges in the required information. The text of the statement must also be included in front of the table of contentsof the partys main brief. Counsel is required to complete the entire statement and to use N/A for anyinforamtion that is not applicable if this form is used.
[ ] PLEASE CHECK HERE IF ANY INFORMATION ON THIS FORM IS NEW ORREVISED AND INDICATE WHICH INFORMATION IS NEW OR REVISED
(1) The full name of every party that the attorney represents in the case (if the party is a corporation, you mustprovide the corporate disclosure information required by Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 by completing item #3):
Counsel represents amici curiae, Members of the Indiana General Assembly, whose names are listed on thefollowing page.
(2) The names of all law firms whose partners or associates have appeared for the party in the case (includingproceedings in the district court or before an administrative agency) or are expected to appear for the party in thiscourt:
Paul Benjamin Linton Eric Allan Koch Thomas BrejchaSpecial Counsel The Koch Law Firm President & Chief CounselThomas More Society 520 North Walnut Street Thomas More Society921 Keystone Avenue Bloomington, Indiana 47404 29 S. La Salle Street Suite 440Northbrook, Illinois 60062 Chicago, Illinois 60603
(3) If the party or amicus is a corporation: N/A
i) identify all its parent corporations, if any; andii) list any publicly held company that owns 10$ or more of the partys or amicus stock
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Attorneys Signature: s/Thomas Brejcha Date: August 3, 2011Attorneys Printed Name: Thomas Brejcha
Please indicate if you are Counsel of Record for the above listed parties pursuant to Circuit Rule 3(d): NO
Address: 29 S. La Salle Street Suite 440Chicago, Illinois 60603
Phone Number: (312) 782-1680 Fax Number: (312) 782-1887E-Mail Address: tbrejcha@thomasmoresociety.org
v
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
7/26
List ofAmici Curiae
Sen. David Long Rep. Brian BosmaSen. Edward Ed Charbonneau Rep. Donald Don LeheSen. Brandt Hershman Rep. Douglas Doug GutweinSen. Carlin Yoder Rep. Timothy Tim Wesco
Sen. Dennis Kruse Rep. Rebecca KubackiSen. James Jim Banks Rep. William Bill FriendSen. Travis Holdman Rep. Richard Rich McClainSen. James Jim Buck Rep. Jeffrey Jeff ThompsonSen. Constance Connie Lawson Rep. Kevin MahanSen. Doug Eckerty Rep. Paul Eric Turner Sen. Michael Mike Delph Rep. Billy Joe Bill DavisSen. Scott Schneider Rep. Heath VanNatter Sen. James Jim Merritt, Jr. Rep. Gregory SteurwaldSen. Patricia Pat Miller Rep. James Jim BairdSen. Richard Michael Mike Young Rep. Bruce BordersSen. Richard Bray Rep. Robert Bob HeatonSen. Greg Walker Rep. Timothy Tim NeeseSen. Jean Leising Rep. Wesley Wes Culver Sen. Johnny Nugent Rep. Daniel Dan LeonardSen. Brent Steele Rep. Richard Dick DodgeSen. James Jim Smith, Jr. Rep. David YardeSen. James Jim Tomes Rep. Robert Bob Cherry
Rep. Thomas Tom KnollmanRep. Charles Woody BurtonRep. Milo SmithRep. Matthew Matt UbelhorRep. Mark MessmerRep. Eric KochRep. Randall Randy FryeRep. Judson Jud McMillanRep. David Dave CheathamRep. Rhonda RhoadsRep. Rep. Edward Ed Clere
Rep. Steven Steve DavissonRep. Susan Sue EllspermannRep. Ronald Ron BaconRep. Matthew Matt LehmenRep. Cynthia Cindy NoeRep. Michael Mike SpeedyRep. Robert Bob BehningRep. David Dave Frizzell
vi
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
8/26
Table of Contents
Corporate Disclosure Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Table of Authorities.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Interest of theAmici.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ARGUMENT:
THE PUBLIC FUNDING RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN INDIANA CODE
5-22-17-5.5 DO NOT IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION ONTHE ASSERTED RIGHT OF PHYSICIANS TO PERFORM ABORTIONS. . . . 3
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appendix
Certificate of Compliance
Certificate of Service
vii
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
9/26
Table of Authorities
Cases
F.C.C. v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8
Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581 (1926). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Libertarian Party of Indiana v. Packard, 741 F.2d 981 (7th Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . 6
Manbourne,Inc. v. Conrad, 796 F.2d 884 (7th Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593 (1972).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8
Planned Parenthood of Central & Northern Arizona v. Arizona,
718 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 8-9
Planned Parenthood of Central Texas v. Sanchez,
280 F. Supp.2d 590 (W.D. Tex. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11
Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas v. Sanchez,403 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas v. Sanchez,480 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Planned Parenthood of Mid-Missouri & Eastern Kansas, Inc. v. Dempsey,
167 F.3d 458 (8th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 9
viii
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
10/26
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6
Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7
Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Statutes
U.S.CONST., art. I, 10, cl. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4U.S.CONST., AMEND. I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6, 9
U.S.CONST., AMEND. XIV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
42 U.S.C. 247c et seq.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(23). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
IND.CODE 5-22-17-5.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
IND.CODE 5-22-17-5.5(a).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IND.CODE 5-22-17-5.5(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IND.CODE 5-22-17-5.5(c).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IND.CODE 5-22-17-5.5(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
IND.CODE 16-34-2-1.1(a)(1)(E).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
IND.CODE 16-34-2-1.1(a)(1)(G). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
ix
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
11/26
Interest of theAmici
Amici curiae are more than sixty members of the Indiana General Assembly,
both senators and representatives, all of whom voted in favor of House Enrolled
Act 1210, which is the subject of this appeal. As members of the General1
Assembly, amici have a vital, obvious and ongoing interest in the constitutionality
of legislation they enact. In support of that interest, amici file their brief asking
this Honorable Court to reverse and vacate that portion of the district courts order
preliminarily enjoining enforcement of 5-22-17-5.5 of the Indiana Code.
This brief is submitted pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure with the consent of all of the parties to the appeal. No2
partys counsel authored the brief in whole or in part; no party or partys counsel
contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief; and
no person other than the amici curiae or its counsel contributed money that
was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief.
The names and legislative districts of the amici are listed in the appendix1
to this brief.
In addition to the brief filed in this Court with the consent of all of the2
parties, the district court granted the motion ofamici for leave to file a
memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs motion for a preliminaryinjunction. Doc. No. 52.
1
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
12/26
Statement of the Case
Plaintiffs brought an action against defendants seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief against enforcement of certain provisions of House Enrolled Act
1210. Plaintiffs asked the district court to enjoin provisions of the law that defund
entities that perform abortions or maintain or operate facilities where abortions are
performed, IND.CODE 5-22-17-5.5, and that require a pregnant woman seeking
an abortion to be informed that human physical life begins when a human ovum
is fertilized by a human sperm,IND.CODE 16-34-2-1.1(a)(1)(E), and that
objective scientific information shows that a fetus can feel pain at or before (20)
weeks of postfertilization age. IND.CODE 16-34-2-1.1(a)(1)(G).
The district court granted plaintiffs motion with respect to the defunding
provision, 5-22-17-5.5; denied the motion with respect to the requirement that a
pregnant woman seeking an abortion be told that human physical life begins
when a human ovum is fertilized by a human sperm, 16-34-2-1.1(a)(1)(E); and
granted the motion, as applied to plaintiffs only, with respect to the requirement
that a pregnant woman seeking an abortion be told that objective scientific
information shows that a fetus can feel pain at or before (20) weeks of
postfertilization age, 16-34-2-1.1(a)(1)(G). Doc. No. 77 at 43. Defendants
have appealed the preliminary injunction as it pertains to the defunding provision.
2
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
13/26
ARGUMENT
THE PUBLIC FUNDING RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN INDIANA
CODE 5-22-17-5.5 DO NOT IMPOSE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
CONDITION ON THE ASSERTED RIGHT OF PHYSICIANS TOPERFORM ABORTIONS.
Except for licensed hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers,see IND.
CODE 5-22-17-5.5(a), an agency of the State of Indiana may not enter into a
contract with or make a grant to any entity that performs abortions or maintains
or operates a facility where abortions are performed that involves the expenditure
of state funds or federal funds administered by the state. IND.CODE 5-22-17-
5.5(b). Moreover, any appropriation by the State to pay for a contract with or
grant made to any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility
where abortions are performed is canceled, and the money appropriated is not
available for payment of any contract with or grant made to the entity that
performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are
performed. IND.CODE 5-22-17-5.5(c). Finally, [f]or any contract with or
grant made to an entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility
where abortions are performed covered under subsection (b), the budget agency
shall make a determination that funds are not available, and the contract or grant
shall be terminated under section 5 of this chapter. IND.CODE 5-22-17-5.5(d).
In granting, in part, the motion for a preliminary injunction, the district
3
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
14/26
court found that plaintiffs had established a reasonable likelihood of success on
the merits of their arguments that, with respect to funds provided through the
federal-state Medicaid program (Title XIX), 5-22-17-5.5 violates the freedom
of choice provision of the Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(23), and that,3
with respect to grants made under the Disease Intervention Services program
authorized by 42 U.S.C. 247c et seq., 5-22-17-5.5 is preempted by federal law.
Doc. No. 77 at 6. Given the nature of its ruling, the court did not address
plaintiffs arguments that the restrictions on Medicaid funding set forth in 5-22-
17-5.5 are preempted by federal law; that 5-22-17-5.5 violates the Contract
Clause (art. I, 10, cl. 1); and that 5-22-17-5.5 imposes an unconstitutional
condition on plaintiffs receipt of state and federal funds. Id. In this brief, amici
address whether there is a reasonable likelihood of plaintiffs prevailing on their
unconstitutional condition argument. See Manbourne,Inc. v. Conrad, 796 F.2d
884, 887 (7th Cir. 1986) (identifying preliminary injunction factors).4
Under 1396a(a)(23), a state Medicaid plan must provide that any3
individual eligible for medical assistance . . . may obtain such assistance from anyinstitution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the
service or services required . . . who undertakes to provide him such services . . . .
With respect to all other matters not discussed herein (e.g., whether4
plaintiffs have stated a cause of action, whether the funding restrictions conflictwith or are otherwise preempted by federal law and whether plaintiffs have
satisfied the other requirements for issuance of a preliminary injunction), amici
generally adopt defendants opening brief.
4
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
15/26
In their complaint (Doc. No. 1 at 11, 53) and in their memorandum of law
in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 11 at 22-26),
plaintiffs asserted that in forcing abortion providers to choose between
performing abortions or receiving the non-abortion related funding, the statute
imposes an unconstitutional condition and is invalid. Amici respond that abortion
providers have no constitutionally recognized Fourteenth Amendment right to
perform abortions, and that if such a right exists, it is derivative of the rights of
their pregnant women patients. Plaintiffs, however, have neither alleged nor
proved that the funding restrictions in 5-22-17-5.5 would interfere with the
ability of pregnant women to obtain abortions. Accordingly, because the
constitutional rights of women seeking abortions have not been violated, neither
has the asserted right of their providers.
The Supreme Court has held that [n]either Congress nor the states may
condition the granting of government funds on the forfeiture of constitutional
rights. Planned Parenthood of Mid-Missouri & Eastern Kansas, Inc. v.
Dempsey, 167 F.3d 458, 461 (8th Cir. 1999) (citingPerry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S.
593, 597 (1972) (free speech); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969)
(right to travel), and Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 518-19 (1958) (free
speech). The rationale underlying the unconstitutional condition doctrine is
5
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
16/26
premised on the notion that what a government cannot compel it should not be
able to coerce. Libertarian Party of Indiana v. Packard, 741 F.2d 981, 988 (7th
Cir. 1984). [I]f the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his
constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms
would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to
produce a result which [it] could not command directly. Perry, 408 U.S. at 597
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). [F]unding classifications that
interfere with the exercise of constitutional rights must be necessary to promote a
compellinggovernmental purpose. Dempsey, 167 F.3d at 461 (quoting
Thompson, 394 U.S. at 634) (emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs unconstitutional condition argument necessarily presupposes
that physicians (and possibly other health care professionals) have a constitutional
right to perform abortions. But as plaintiffs themselves admitted below (Doc. No.5
11 at 23), the Supreme Court has never expressly held that abortion providers have
such a right. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 113 (1976) (plurality)
That distinguishes this case from the unconstitutional condition5
argument raised inRust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 192-200 (1991), which wasbased on the First Amendment free speech rights of Title X grantees, and a similarargument advanced inPlanned Parenthood of Central & Northern Arizona v.
Arizona, 718 F.2d 938, 942-46 (9th Cir. 1983), both cited by plaintiffs
(Memorandum at 25-26 & n. 12). Section 5-22-17-5.5 does not implicate the freespeech rights of abortion providers and plaintiffs have not contended otherwise.
6
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
17/26
(declining to decide whether a physician has a constitutional right[] to practice
medicine). [T]he practice of medicine, including the performance of6
abortions, is subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the State.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 884 (1992) (plurality). See also
Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U.S. 581, 596 (1926) (there is no right to practice
medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States).
Even assuming, however, that physicians (or other health care
professionals) have a constitutional right to perform abortions, that right is not
independent of the pregnant womans rights, but is derived from and dependent
upon her right to obtain an abortion. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 884 ([w]hatever
constitutional status the doctor-patient relation may have as a general matter, in
the present context it is derivative of the womans position). See also Harris v.
McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 318 n. 21 (1980) (the constitutional entitlement of a
physician who administers medical care to an indigent woman is no broader than
that of his patient);Dempsey, 167 F.3d at 464 ([a]ny constitutional right of
clinics to provide abortion services . . . is derived directly from womens
The plurality in Singleton concluded that it generally is appropriate to6
allow a physician to assert the rights of women patients as against governmentalinterference with the abortion decision . . . . 428 U.S. at 118. Conferring third-
party standing on physicians to represent the constitutional rights of their patients,
however, is analytically distinct from whether the physicians themselves have aconstitutional right to perform abortions.
7
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
18/26
constitutional right to choose abortion) (citing Casey). Plaintiffs, however, have
neither alleged nor proved that 5-22-17-5.5 burdens or otherwise interferes with
the constitutional right of pregnant women to obtain abortions. Because
prohibiting recipients of state funds or federal funds administered by the State
from performing abortions would have at most an extremely attenuated effect
upon the availability of abortion services,Dempsey, 167 F.3d at 465, the asserted
right of abortion providers toperform abortions, which is derivative of the
womans right to obtain an abortion, is not violated either.
None of the authorities cited by plaintiffs below supports their
unconstitutional condition argument. See Doc. No. 11 (Memorandum) at 23-26.
The difference between restrictions placed upon abortionproviders and those
placed upon abortion patients distinguishes the statute at issue here from the
hypothetical one discussed inHarris v. McRae, 448 U.S. at 317 n. 19 ([a]
substantial constitutional question would arise if Congress had attempted to
withhold all Medicaid benefits from an otherwise eligible candidate simply
because the candidate exercised her constitutionally protected freedom to
terminate her pregnancy by abortion). In Planned Parenthood of Central &7
It is also distinct from the hypothetical raised in Webster v. Reproductive7
Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989). In rejecting a challenge to a state law that
prohibited abortions from being performed in publicly owned and operatedfacilities, the Court expressed the view that [t]his case might . . . be different if
8
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
19/26
Northern Arizona v. Arizona, the Ninth Circuit assumed that Planned Parenthood
had a constitutional right to engage in abortion, 718 F.2d at 944, without
engaging in any analysis of the issue and without recognizing that any such right,
if it exists, is derivative of the pregnant womans right to obtain an abortion. In
Dempsey, the Eighth Circuit held that to interpret state law to prohibit abortion
providers from receiving state family planning funds without allowing them to
establish affiliates that would be eligible for such funds would cross the line
established inRust v. Sullivan,F.C.C. v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364,
400 (1984), andRegan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540 (1983). 167
F.3d at 463. All three cases, however, involved constitutionally protected free8
speech, including abortion advocacy (Rust), editorializing (League of Women
Voters) and lobbying (Regan), which 5-22-17-5.5 does not restrict. To the
extent thatDempsey suggests that abortion providers have a constitutional right to
the State barred doctors who performed abortions in private facilities from the useof public facilities for any purpose. Id. at 510 n. 8. Section 5-22-17-5.5, ofcourse, does no such thing. Moreover, nothing in 5-22-17-5.5 disqualifies fromstate and federal programs any entity that employs or contracts with a physicianwho, outside the scope of his employment or contract, performs abortions, so long
as the entity itselfdoes not perform abortions or maintain or operate a facilitywhere abortions are performed.
Amici, it should be emphasized, do notargue that 5-22-17-5.5 does not8
permit the creation of affiliates that would qualify for state and federal funds
administered by the State of Indiana, but only that such affiliation is not necessaryin order to uphold the statute.
9
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
20/26
perform abortions, it cited no authority in support of that proposition.
Finally, plaintiffs citedPlanned Parenthood of Central Texas v. Sanchez,
280 F. Supp.2d 590, 608 (W.D. Tex. 2003), which held, inter alia, that abortion
providers have some constitutionally-protected right, derived from their patients
rights, to perform the services that are necessary to enable women to exercise their
own constitutional rights. Because the appropriation rider at issue in Sanchez
withholds funding from the Plaintiffs because they engage in a constitutionally
protected activity, it creates an unconstitutional condition. Id. On appeal, the
district courts judgment was remanded with directions. Planned Parenthood of9
Houston and Southeast Texas v. Sanchez, 403 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. 2005). The
court of appeals determined that the appropriation rider did not foreclose the
creation of affiliates which, depending upon how they were structured, could
largely obviate the preemption issue that had been raised and decided adversely to
the State in the lower court. Id. at 335-43. Although the Fifth Circuit did not
address the merits of the district courts unconstitutional condition analysis in
remanding the case for further proceedings, in a later appeal from the denial of
attorney fees the court of appeals noted that [b]y remanding the entire case to the
The Fifth Circuits opinionholding that the availability of an affiliation9
option was critical to any decision upholding the rider against a preemption
challengewas limited to Title X, 403 F.3d at 338 n. 68, which, as plaintiffsconceded below (Memorandum at 7), is not at issue here.
10
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
21/26
district court with instructions to dissolve the injunction, . . . we implicitly rejected
that claim as well. Planned Parenthood of Houston and Southeast Texas v.
Sanchez, 480 F.3d 734, 742 (5th Cir. 2007). In view of this clarification,
plaintiffs reliance on the district courts opinion in Sanchezis misplaced. The
Fifth Circuits opinion in Sanchezsupports the constitutionality of 5-22-17-5.5.
In sum, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that abortion providers have a
constitutional right to perform abortions, much less one that is independent of the
constitutional rights of pregnant women to obtain abortions. Assuming that there
is a right toperform abortions, it necessarily derives from the rights of women to
obtain abortions. Accordingly, if requiring abortion providers to choose between
performing abortions or receiving the non-abortion related funding, Complaint at
11, 53, would have no effect on the availability of abortion services (and
plaintiffs have not contended otherwise), then it cannot be said that 5-22-17-5.5
imposes an unconstitutional condition on abortion providers. Plaintiffs have not
shown that they have a reasonable likelihood of success at trial with respect to
their unconstitutional condition argument. And, for the reasons set forth in the
defendants opening brief, plaintiffs have not shown that they are otherwise
entitled to a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the district courts order
enjoining enforcement of 5-22-17-5.5 should be reversed and vacated.
11
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
22/26
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, amici curiae, members of the Indiana General
Assembly, respectfully request that this Honorable Court reverse and vacate that
portion of the district courts preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of
Indiana Code 5-22-17-5.5.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Paul Benjamin LintonPaul Benjamin Linton Eric Allan KochSpecial Counsel The Koch Law Firm, P.C.Thomas More Society 520 North Walnut Street921 Keystone Avenue Bloomington, Indiana 47404
Northbrook, Illinois 60062 (812) 337-3120 (tel)(847) 291-3848 (tel)
Thomas Brejcha
President & Chief CounselThomas More Society29 S. La Salle Street Suite 440Chicago, Illinois 60603(312) 782-1680 (tel)
12
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
23/26
Appendix
List ofAmici Curiae
Senate
Sen. David Long 16 Districtth
PresidentPro Tem
Sen. Edward Ed Charbonneau 5 Districtth
Sen. Brandt Hershman 7 Districtth
Sen. Carlin Yoder 12 Districtth
Sen. Dennis Kruse 14 Districtth
Sen. James Jim Banks 17 Districtth
Sen. Travis Holdman 19 Districtth
Sen. James Jim Buck 21 Districtst
Sen. Constance Connie Lawson 24 Districtth
Sen. Doug Eckerty 26 Districtth
Sen. Michael Mike Delph 29 Districtth
Sen. Scott Schneider 30 Districtth
Sen. James Jim Merritt, Jr. 31 Districtst
Sen. Patricia Pat Miller 32 Districtnd
Sen. Richard Michael Mike Young 35 Districtth
Sen. Richard Bray 37 Districtth
Sen. Greg Walker 41 DistrictstSen. Jean Leising 42 Districtnd
Sen. Johnny Nugent 43 Districtrd
Sen. Brent Steele 44 Districtth
Sen. James Jim Smith, Jr. 45 Districtth
Sen. James Jim Tomes 49 Districtth
House of Representatives
Rep. Brian Bosma 88 Districtth
Speaker
Rep. Donald Don Lehe 15 Districtth
Rep. Douglas Doug Gutwein 16 Districtth
Rep. Timothy Tim Wesco 21 Districtst
Rep. Rebecca Kubacki 22 Districtnd
(list continued on next page)
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
24/26
House of Representatives(continued from previous page)
Rep. William Bill Friend 23 Districtrd
Rep. Richard Rich McClain 24 District
th
Rep. Jeffrey Jeff Thompson 28 Districtth
Rep. Kevin Mahan 31 Districtst
Rep. Paul Eric Turner 32 Districtnd
Rep. Billy Joe Bill Davis 33 Districtrd
Rep. Heath VanNatter 38 Districtth
Rep. Gregory Steurwald 40 Districtth
Rep. James Jim Baird 44 Districtth
Rep. Bruce Borders 45 Districtth
Rep. Robert Bob Heaton 46 Districtth
Rep. Timothy Tim Neese 48 Districtth
Rep. Wesley Wes Culver 49 Districtth
Rep. Daniel Dan Leonard 50 Districtth
Rep. Richard Dick Dodge 51 Districtst
Rep. David Yarde 52 Districtnd
Rep. Robert Bob Cherry 53 Districtrd
Rep. Thomas Tom Knollman 55 Districtth
Rep. Charles Woody Burton 58 Districtth
Rep. Milo Smith 59 Districtth
Rep. Matthew Matt Ubelhor 62 DistrictndRep. Mark Messmer 63 Districtrd
Rep. Eric Koch 65 Districtth
Rep. Randall Randy Frye 67th District
Rep. Judson Jud McMillin 68 Districtth
Rep. David Dave Cheatham 69 Districtth
Rep. Rhonda Rhoads 70 Districtth
Rep. Edward Ed Clere 72 Districtnd
Rep. Steven Steve Davisson 73 Districtrd
Rep. Susan Sue Ellspermann 74 Districtth
Rep. Ronald Ron Bacon 75 Districtth
Rep. Matthew Matt Lehmen 79 Districtth
Rep. Cynthia Cindy Noe 87 Districtth
Rep. Michael Mike Speedy 90 Districtth
Rep. Robert Bob Behning 91 Districtst
Rep. David Dave Frizzell 93 Districtrd
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
25/26
Certificate of Compliance with Rule 32(a)
This brief complies with the type-volume limitations of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B) because it contains 2,793 words, excluding the parts of the brief
exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(5) and type style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief
has been prepared in a proportionately spaced typeface using Word Perfect X5
word processing software in 14-point Time New Roman font.
s/Paul Benjamin LintonPaul Benjamin LintonCounsel for theAmici
August 3, 2011
-
8/6/2019 Thomas More Society Friend of the Court Brief for Indiana Legislators To Defund Planned Parenthood
26/26
United States Court of Appealsfor the Seventh Circuit
Case No. 11-2464
Certificate of Service
When Not All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing brief with the Clerk of theCourt for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by using theAppellate CM/ECF system on August 3, 2011.
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by theCM/ECF system.
I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not CM/ECF users. Iserved three copies of the foregoing brief by the United States Mail, first class
postage prepaid, on the following CM/ECF non-participants, on August 2, 2011:
Roger K. Evans Talcott Camp
Planned Parenthood Federation of America American Civil Liberties UnionLegal Action for Reproductive Rights 125 Broad Street434 W. 33 Street New York, New York 10004rd
New York, New York 10001
Signature (use s/ format): s/Paul Benjamin Linton
Paul Benjamin Linton
top related