More

Indiana Abortion Showdown Could Cost State $4.3 Billion

TOM LoBIANCO   06/ 5/11 08:23 PM ET   AP

INDIANAPOLIS — A looming showdown over Indiana's new law that cuts funding for the Planned Parenthood organization may test how far Republican-led states are willing to go in pressing their tough new anti-abortion agendas. The stakes are high. The future of health care for more than 1 million poor and elderly Indiana residents hangs in the balance.

Indiana became the first state this year to cut off all government funds to Planned Parenthood, fulfilling conservatives' goal of financially weakening organizations that provide abortions. Other conservative states have considered such action in recent years but backed away under the threat of loss of all federal money for their Medicaid programs.

The willingness of Indiana, led by a Republican governor and GOP-controlled Legislature, to challenge the federal government and risk a huge financial penalty could take the issue into uncharted legal and political territory. Conservative leaders in other states will be watching the confrontation as they plan their own action on abortion and other social issues.

"I think this is an instance in which a state is really trying to overturn national policy and in so doing is likely to forego federal funding," said Christopher Arterton, professor of political management at George Washington University and an expert on federal-state issues.

Is Indiana willing to risk $4.3 billion in Medicaid money to strike a blow for the right-to-life movement? Some conservative members of Republican-controlled legislatures argue it's time for states to risk serious penalties to defend their principles and throw off federal mandates. And the Medicaid program, with its rising costs and strict rules, has been a particular target of ire.

Is the Obama administration actually willing to leave low-income families without health care to punish a defiant state?

"Like any game of chicken, it's about who blinks first," said Ed Haislmaier, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy, a conservative think-tank.

Planned Parenthood has filed suit to challenge Indiana's law, so the courts could have a say in how the dispute is resolved.

The Obama administration directed Indiana this week to drop its ban on Planned Parenthood, which the legislature passed this spring after becoming considerably more Republican and conservative in last fall's midterm election. The Department of Health and Human Services said the state cannot legally pick and choose which agencies provide health care to people covered by the federal-state program. The warning letter cited a federal statute that directs the withholding of all Medicaid funding from a state if it violates federal law.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said this week that 19 states have gotten into disputes with the Obama administration over health care funding, and all amended their plans to keep their money. He said he expects Indiana to do the same.

Arizona reversed course last year after HHS threatened to withhold money because the state had frozen its children's health program. Some Republican lawmakers in Texas also proposed dropping out of the Medicaid program this year but backed away because of the financial impact.

Republican lawmakers in Indiana are refusing to back down.

"Indiana's on solid legal ground," said state Sen. Scott Schneider, an Indianapolis Republican who sponsored the measure to cut off Planned Parenthood. "There's no reason for us to change course at this time."

Indiana conservatives are clearly hoping the administration will blink if it comes to cutting off health insurance for poor people. The money pays for all kinds of routine health care.

The White House and HHS "have made the decision they are willing to drive those stakes that much higher at the risk of poor people's health," said Sue Swayze, legislative director of Indiana Right to Life, which is supporting the Indiana law.

Carrying out the threat could be difficult, Haislmaier said.

"From a political standpoint it is interesting whether the Obama administration has really thought through the implications," he said.

Possible compromises or half-measures could settle the matter.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who did not push for the Planned Parenthood law, could ask state lawmakers to repeal it. The federal court in Indianapolis that is hearing Planned Parenthood's legal challenge could block the law from going into effect, buying time for changes.

The federal Medicaid statute also gives HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius latitude to withhold only a portion of Indiana's Medicaid dollars, cushioning the impact.

Senate Appropriations Chairman Sen. Luke Kenley, a Republican who supported the Planned Parenthood ban, said the state should seek some deal to keep people from losing their coverage.

"If the state can't reach an agreement with the federal government, then the state should back off in the face of losing all its Medicaid funding," he said.

Kansas state lawmakers approved a budget earlier this month that restricts funding for Planned Parenthood. North Carolina lawmakers also are expected to block funds for the group.

HHS issued a warning letter to all 50 states this week, effectively firing a "shot across the bow" of others considering similar actions, said Betty Cockrum, president of Planned Parenthood of Indiana.

___

Associated Press writer Deanna Martin contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
INDIANAPOLIS — A looming showdown over Indiana's new law that cuts funding for the Planned Parenthood organization may test how far Republican-led states are willing to go in pressing their toug...
INDIANAPOLIS — A looming showdown over Indiana's new law that cuts funding for the Planned Parenthood organization may test how far Republican-led states are willing to go in pressing their toug...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,157
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (47 total)
11:08 AM on 06/09/2011
The sad part is that these irrational evangelicals are also getting into birth control and family planning services. They are hurting all poor women and their families by attacking these services all out. It is not just abortion. Abortion is legal, regardless, but birth control and family planning services reduce abortion. This is a fact. In Denmark, where birth control and family planning are free, accessible, and a national value, abortion rate in the population is very low. If the evangelicals really believed in the necessity to lower the abortion rate, they would make birth control and family planning services supported everywhere and free, and accessible. I find all of this faction hypocritical.
photo
JubalTHarshaw
Just Passing Through...
05:07 PM on 06/08/2011
If, as Planned Parenthood apologists claim, abortion is a tiny fraction of the services provided by the acolytes of Margaret Sanger, the solution is simple. Get out of the abortion business...
11:04 AM on 06/09/2011
I am a big supporter of Planned Parenthood and because of the evangelicals and other right-wing Republicans, I have increased my monthly donation to the group three times by a factor of two. I am never, ever an apologist for Planned Parenthood. They have almost nothing to apologize for in terms of their work and efforts. They do fantastic and ethical work that services poor women and their families. Abortion is legal and a choice. It is an ethical choice based on each woman's situation. It is not a choice based on a stranger-based citizen with a faith-based belief. Such strangers should just pay attention to their own bodies and get out of others. That is how our Constitution protects us and other supporting laws. I do believe the people who are unethical are those that get into other people's business.
10:46 PM on 06/09/2011
well good.....then problem solved
photo
JubalTHarshaw
Just Passing Through...
09:41 AM on 06/10/2011
Abortion on demand is the law of the land. That is settled until Roe v. Wade is revisited. The issue at hand is that no taxpayer funds should be used to fund abortion. You are entitled to your high opinion of Planned Parenthood as I am entitled to my equally low opinion of that organization. If Planned Parenthood wants to receive public funding, it should get out of the abortion business which it repeatedly claims to be a "tiny" portion of the services it renders. That would seem to solve the public funding problem and leave the field open for the ethical and legal debate in another forum.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:50 PM on 06/11/2011
Yeah, no-one has ever given a clear explanation why that won't work. You get a lot of tap-dancing.

Personally, I'm a big fan of Planned Parenthood. I think people of all income streams ought to have the full range of legally available choices.

That said, I think PP ought to either get out of the abortion business, or stop accepting tax-payer dollars. Such a choice would give PP the moral high ground, and would be clear and easily understood by all Americans, re:less of political stripe.

The current arrangement, whereby PP enforces "no taxes for abortions" through accounting practices that are incomprehensible to anyone without a CPA, doesn't really make sense to most people.
09:16 AM on 06/12/2011
I don't have a CPA, but I do run my own business. It is standard practice, yes, standard practice to account for services revenue and cost separately by those categories. In fact it is the standard. Those that don't do it are lazy. The reason you do it is not only for federal law, but because it makes sense to understand the products you offer, the revenue coming in and the expenses and how the Cost of Services is partioned in costs (labor, drugs, space use, etc.). This helps for planning future service needs for that particular service. For example, the number of people needed, seasonality, the space needs, the drugs and other consumables in inventory. It takes a pretty shallow understanding of business to bark up this tree. That people do shows me clearly how political these arguments are and how myth-mongering these people are. The reason is that these people are "framing arguments" and not just for psychological positioning, but misrepresentation of a "frame". Please stop your myth-mongering.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martha Riddle
I would like to edit my micro bio.
01:32 AM on 06/08/2011
Everytime I read about some horrible child abuse case (neglect, torture, imprisonment) would an abortion have stopped that? Abortion vs. terrorizing/torturing a 3 yr old....I don't know.... What's worse?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Davis 1
Liberal Democrat, atheist
07:42 PM on 06/07/2011
Indiana should just secede.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:02 AM on 06/07/2011
This country is becoming as religiously fanatical as other countries. What a pity.
photo
JubalTHarshaw
Just Passing Through...
05:08 PM on 06/08/2011
Like it or not we have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. That allows people with your view point to express it, despite the fact that you are in the minority.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:40 PM on 06/09/2011
Very amusing, You have proved my point..."no balance and no room for tolerance." If everyone doesn't fall in line behind those that espouse thinking or Christianity, such as yourself, they are "in the minority, not Christian, or wrong, etc."
Those in "your" so-called majority would rather judge and espouse doing the right thing when, in fact, you are hurting others.
09:24 AM on 06/12/2011
And I have the freedom to say how intolerant you are and how unethical for your abuse of citizen-rights. Yes, and citizen-rights that are legal, not just ethical. With freedom of speech, I do not have to accept your intolerance and unethical policy making. I can and do protest and protest loudly. If you advocated for corporal punishment of cutting off the hands of theives who stole bread to feed their children, I'd advocate my protest just as loud.

The abuse of citizens by and organized factions, should be fought by any means that helps. Argue loudly in the public commons, publish, tell your friends and neighbors, donate to your representatives and to Planned Parenthood, sign petitions, contribute to legal efforts that fight this faction, protest in the streets, vote, and vote, and vote. And teach our children well that your faction is all about religious intolerance and arrogance of your way over the freedom of individual's choice.
11:10 PM on 06/06/2011
Here's my stance: I don't believe in guns or laws allowing citizens to carry guns, BUT people would still find ways to use guns if it were illegal. Same with abortion. We live in a society where both are too prevalent to ban. Welcome to compromise, folks. Both guns and abortions kill are terminators. Why don't the Indiana Republicans acknowledge this? Oh, that's right, they would have to think.
07:56 AM on 06/07/2011
carrying a gun is not the same..........i carry a gun for a two bank runs per week........and yet i have never had to do anything with it, other than show it to back down a group of boys intent to relieve me of my bank bag.........
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:01 AM on 06/07/2011
Hmmm, not the same. This simply boils down to stopping the interference into peoples lives. The decisions that a person; i.e. woman, doctor, etc. to terminate a pregnancy is not up for national scrutiny. It is with those people immediately and intimately involved. As for the religious aspect....it is choking this country to death. You only showed your weapon probably because the boys were unarmed. If they had been armed it would have been a different matter. And, you would not have been scrutinized in the use of your weapon.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
plantwomyn
Fighting for full citizenship
10:49 AM on 06/07/2011
The right to carry a gun and the right to control your own body are very similar. As you said, your choice to carry a gun does not imply that you have to use it, just as my choice to carry a pregnancy to term does not mean that I have to have an abortion. You have "never had to do anything with" your choice and neither have I. Let's hope that holds true for the future for you, I am now past the "furtile" stage but was glad to have the choice if I needed it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
09:34 PM on 06/07/2011
Guns can kill unjustly.

Abortions are inherently an action of self defense.

Your analogy doesn't map.
11:26 PM on 06/07/2011
abortion kills the defenseless

my gun has never killed a human.......i have watched it and have yet to see it make the decision to take a life justly or unjustly
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
troutster
Fish fear me. Otherwise, I'm pretty harmless.
07:47 PM on 06/06/2011
These guys are willing to play poker with Medicaid...vital medical services to the poor. Well, why not? I'm sure they prayed about it and decided Jesus would do the same. I'm sure they feel led by the Holy Spirit to endanger the health of thousands of people...just to make a point.

This people make a mockery of their religion.
08:27 PM on 06/06/2011
Hmm, what would Jesus do?.. Hey, he'd probably cut WIC too. >.
07:40 PM on 06/06/2011
@Lucy0808

You are either grossly misinformed or lying....Margret Sanger never changed her position:

"That blacks endured extreme prejudice and discrimination, which contributed greatly to their plight, seemed to further justify restricting their numbers. Many believed the solution lay in reducing reproduction. Sanger suggested the answer to poverty and degradation lay in smaller numbers of blacks. She convinced black civic groups in Harlem of the "benefits" of birth control, under the cloak of "better health" (i.e., reduction of maternal and infant death; child spacing) and "family planning." So with their cooperation, and the endorsement of The Amsterdam News (a prominent black newspaper), Sanger established the Harlem branch of the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau. The ABCL told the community birth control was the answer to their predicament."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
09:32 PM on 06/07/2011
And today the Harlem children's zone third graders have the highest math scores in New York.

http://www.hcz.org/our-results

--------------
* 100% of third graders at Promise Academies I and II tested at or above grade level on the math exam, outperforming their peers in New York State, New York City, District 5, and black and white students throughout the state
* Over 98% of Promise Academy II's students scored at or above grade level on the math exam, outperforming their counterparts in New York State, New York City and District 5, as well as black and white students in New York State
* In English and Language Arts (ELA), over 93% of Promise Academy I third graders tested at or above grade level, outperforming New York State, New York City and District 5 peers, as well as black and white students in New York State
* In 2008, 93% of Promise Academy High School ninth graders passed the statewide Algebra Regents exam.
-------------

The project starts with "baby college" which is a program expectant mother's enroll in

Mother's who actively want a child find the time to do these sorts of things.

Of course, some people don't appear to think that a Mother's Love is important for child development which is why they are willing to force birth on unwilling women.
photo
fredpa
I will try again tomorrow.
06:40 PM on 06/06/2011
Read Freakonomics--an unintended consequence of Roe v Wade is a reduction in crime.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MJHammonds
Optimistic Cynic
07:48 PM on 06/06/2011
I have read it- but there is no empirical evidence to support their claims, as interesting as they were, and I am pro-choice.
photo
fredpa
I will try again tomorrow.
08:55 AM on 06/07/2011
What empirical evidence could there be for crime reduction. It's a statistical argument in which the authors rule out every other conceivable factor. DNA evidence is also a statistical argument, but accepted for practical reasons.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:18 PM on 06/06/2011
Why doesn't Planned Parenthood split into two organizations - one that provides all services up to and not including abortions, and another that provides abortions and nothing else.

Then the first group could receive taxpayer dollars and the second dollars from private citizens wishing to insure poor people have access to abortions.

The last time I was injured, I went to urgent care instead of the ER. They had a very clear list of things they could and could not do. Anyone who needed care beyond their services walked across the street to the ER.

If something as time sensitive as ER/urgent care can split into distinct groups, why not reproductive services?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MJHammonds
Optimistic Cynic
05:53 PM on 06/06/2011
While I understand the point you are trying to make, making comparisons between an ER of a hospital and an urgent care clinic do not apply to Planned Parenthood- especially since PP and all other abortion providers are prohibited by law in using taxpayer dollars for abortions.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:04 PM on 06/06/2011
Why exactly can't PP perform the same division of labor that is done by urgent care clinics and ERs? The latter have a much more difficult set of services to provide.

It's really hard for me to see why this solution would not work.

Honestly, I think the pro-choice people sometimes avoid compromise for appearances sake.
06:22 PM on 06/06/2011
For all legal intents and purposes, it already has. PP America's revenue stream in handled by two corporations, both non-profits. One handles abortions and is funded by charitable donations and abortion payments; the other handles everything else and is funded by charity and government funding. The non profit that runs the abortion revenue stream has various cost-sharing agreements for payment of staff and use of materials nominally owned by the larger, non-abortion handling non-profit. For example, if a nurse paid by the larger corporation is involved in an abortion procedure, the abortion stream pays out the larger stream for his/her time.

The whole situation creates a lot of extra overhead costs but it's neccessary to be able to demonstrate beyond a doubt, through multiple audits, that the two revenue streams are not crossing,
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:01 PM on 06/07/2011
"The whole situation" also doesn't really work. The public is not reassured by the "two distinct income streams under one roof", and I don't blame them.

(Disclaime­r - I'm pro-choice­, and have no problem with taxpayer funded abortions, and in fact contribute to PP. But I sympathize with people who feel that abortions should not be funded with taxpayer dollars, and would like to see a better solution).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MGmojo
Fail
05:14 PM on 06/06/2011
no spending should be cut, anywhere, until we get our defense spending under control, get rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and stop subsidizing billion dollar industries like oil, sugar, and corn.
after we do that, then you can talk to me about spending cuts...but i still wont agree with defunding PP, Medicare, or pretty much any other social program that HELPS PEOPLE
07:13 PM on 06/06/2011
Hear, hear!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MGmojo
Fail
04:51 PM on 06/06/2011
Women of Indiana,...move to Illinois. We won't make difficult decisions for you, because we know that is your choice.
that is all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rachel Custer
05:48 PM on 06/06/2011
Actually just moved back to Indiana. Illinois is a hole.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MJHammonds
Optimistic Cynic
05:54 PM on 06/06/2011
Nice theoretical alternative, but the women who use PP don't really have a lot of economic freedom in terms of moving to another state.
03:29 PM on 06/06/2011
Of the 1,200,000 abortions last year, does anyone have the statistics on how it breaks down by gender and by race?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Always Conservative
Shovel ready was not....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rhonnybay
Be well. Love well. Do well.
04:05 PM on 06/06/2011
Well, I do know....only women can have abortions so that would help with the gender question.
04:27 PM on 06/06/2011
LOL
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MGmojo
Fail
04:52 PM on 06/06/2011
awesome.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
Your BELIEFS do not trump my RIGHTS...
03:27 PM on 06/06/2011
Yet another of the zillion examples of regugnatican hyprocriticacy...................

The vast majority of those seeking women are minorities...................The repugnaticans fight tooth and nail to attempt to make sure those minority women are denied access to an abortion..................................

Then once these minorities are actually born the repugnaticans strive as hard as they can to make their lives miserable.......................
04:09 PM on 06/06/2011
Absolutely 100% correct. Those statistics should surprise nobody. I always voted Repubican for 25 years, but I was never a social conservative. This extremism has is turning my stomach. You give them an inch and they want it all. Let's put the Dem's firmly back into control for another 50 years so we can balance the budget, reduce deficit, and give our kids what our parent and grandparents had. A democratically controlled congress that cares about its citizens.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rachel Custer
05:49 PM on 06/06/2011
Yes, Republicans are horrible, wanting those minorities to live and everything.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
01:48 AM on 06/07/2011
In squalor.

Live in squalor.

If a woman can control her reproduction she can hold of on bearing until she is prepared, emotionally and financially. Such a woman will have time, resources, and desire to set her kids on a path to success. And the maturity to be a good mother and role model.

You got to force a kid on them when they are still kids themselves to stop that. An angry girl-mother who resents the hardships that the child she never wanted inflicted on her will not escape poverty and will produce kids that won't know how to escape poverty either.

The unwanted kids will never be able to compete with my kids. Kids don't nurture themselves after all. Wanted kids ... well look at Obama. Wanted kids can do almost anything.

Oops! I pulled back the curtain and revealed the kids who owe their lives to the abortion of a prior pregnancy! An abortion which set the wheels in motion that lead to their conception and quickening! We're supposed to pretend they don't exist!
11:27 AM on 06/09/2011
Shallow post from almost every standpoint.

This is the voice of a silly middle class child.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CompassionateDemocrat
Corporations can't vote
02:48 PM on 06/06/2011
OK moderators: this was posted earlier and it doesn't make sense why you wiped it so let's try again:

For the anti-abortion people:

- Approximately 1,200,000 documented abortions peformed in the United States alone per year for the last six years.
- Approximately 88,000 children adopted in the United States per year over the same time period (including those adopted internationally).
- If abortion is made illegal, are you going to take care of the additional 1,012,000 children per year? Who is? I certainly don't want to and I don't want to pay any extra taxes to do so.

Outlawing abortion will not stop it any more than outlawing drugs will stop drug users from getting their fix: as long as there is a need, there will be suppliers regardless of the legality. It's time we do the adult thing, realize that birth control and education will help our teenagers and adults (who comprise most of abortions performed today) from having to have the procedure performed in the first place. Being against birth control, sex education and abortion at the same time will get you more abortions, not less.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
Your BELIEFS do not trump my RIGHTS...
03:24 PM on 06/06/2011
Excellent point.........dovetails perfectly with my comment..........
04:29 PM on 06/06/2011
The Indiana law does not outlaw abortion, it merely prevents hardworking Hoosier's tax money from going toward something they clearly do not wish it to go to. If Planned Parenthood had not played fast and loose with it's books, pushing costs over to the other services it offers, to make it look like the clinic's main function was not abortion, this issue would never have come up. Also, if they stop cooking the books, IN will restore their money - to the non-abortion services only. Just as well over half the population both in Indiana and also the US wants it.
04:50 PM on 06/06/2011
It is an extreme faction that is hurting Planned Parenthood and poor women. Planned Parenthood's income has only3% from abortions. Everything else is family planning, birth control, sexual transmitted diseases, women's healthcare check ups. This is so absurd by a pretty insane extreme factions. These people should bet out of everyone's business. Furthermore, abortion is legal. I've lost respect for these reps in Indiana and the silly faction they pander, too. Foolish people who are lost in an age far far ago.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pindiva
05:04 PM on 06/06/2011
Can you substantiate any of your claims?