Archive for Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Kansas argues order on Planned Parenthood funding

October 4, 2011, 3:57 p.m. Updated October 4, 2011, 10:57 p.m.


— A federal judge’s order blocking a Kansas law that effectively strips Planned Parenthood of family planning funds “emasculates” the state’s autonomy and sovereignty rights and should be overturned, the state argued Tuesday.

The argument was made in a 144-page filing asking the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to set aside a temporary injunction ordering Kansas to continue federal funding to Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri until the case is resolved.

Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a new Kansas law that required the state to allocate federal family planning dollars first to public health departments and hospitals, leaving no money for smaller clinics that rely on thae funding. No federal money goes to pay for abortions. The Title X money targets low-income individuals seeking birth control, cancer screenings and testing for sexually transmitted diseases.

Planned Parenthood contended in its lawsuit that the law violates the First Amendment because it was passed to punish Planned Parenthood for its advocacy of abortion rights, citing comments by the governor and the legislator who authored it urging its passage so as to defund Planned Parenthood. Their lawsuit also asserted that the law violates the Supremacy Clause because states cannot impose additional requirements for entities to qualify for federal programs.

U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten agreed, finding the group would likely prevail in its lawsuit and ordering the state to continue its funding.

Kansas countered in its filing Tuesday that Marten’s conclusions about the merits of Planned Parenthood’s claims are incorrect, contending the statute does not discriminate based on any protected belief.

The state also suggested the judge failed to appropriately weigh the legal factors needed to award a mandatory injunction. It calls the judge’s order for the state to make payments to Planned Parenthood an “affront” to Kansas’ sovereign immunity, which is protected by the Eleventh Amendment.

“The District Court’s order emasculates the state of Kansas’ autonomy and sovereignty rights that are embodied in the Eleventh Amendment,” attorneys for the state wrote.

Lee Thompson, an attorney representing Planned Parenthood, declined to comment on the state’s filing, saying in an email that attorneys have not had a chance to review it yet and would respond later in their own briefing to the appeals court.

The state noted in its motion that Kansas contracts with roughly 55 agencies to perform family planning services. All but two — Planned Parenthood and the Dodge City Family Planning Clinic — were public health agencies. The Dodge City clinic, which also lost Title X funds after the Kansas law was passed, asked last week to join the Planned Parenthood lawsuit.

Kansas told the appeals court that Congress passed Title X of the Public Health Services Act to promote delivery of family planning services to low income patients because of the correlation between lack of access to contraception services and the incidence of poverty. It argued the state law prioritizes those entities the state believes will best meet a wide array of medical needs for low income patients — such as public health agencies and hospitals — instead of specialty clinics.

“Kansas is no different than many states: seeking to do more with less,” the state wrote. “The long-held and common-sense approach the State has charted is to provide funding first to its public facilities that provide a wide array of medical services to low-income citizens.”

As for Planned Parenthood’s First Amendment claims, the state countered that the court erred by relying on the statements of a handful of lawmakers as an accurate reflection of the entire legislative body’s intent. It cited case law that the motives of quoted lawmakers are irrelevant where the statute is neutral on its face.

“Absent evidence that the entire Kansas Legislature acted for a discriminatory purpose, these cases should have precluded the District Court from impugning every Kansas legislator with discriminatory motives based solely upon the stray comments of a few lawmakers,” the state wrote.


Lartist5 2 years, 6 months ago

does anyone else find it funny that the state government feels "emasculated" over a reproductive health issue?


Kyle Chandler 2 years, 6 months ago

Im waiting for the "Im sick of my , oh i get a refund check, tax dollars used for abortions dadgummit" people this morning. Where are you guys. So entertaining.


mloburgio 2 years, 6 months ago

Kansas Legislator Pensions Inflated More Than Ten Fold A May story said that Kansas legislators get credit for working 372 days a year.

Although Kansas legislators work part time and are paid only during the 90 legislative session and days their committees meet outside that window, lawmakers who choose to join the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) pay their contributions into the system as if they worked every single calendar day of the year plus one more week

Legislators are the only classification of Kansas public employee that can draw down benefits based on a annualized salary.

Kansas Legislator example

Salary: $7,979

Inflation #1: Based on 372 day year = $32,982

Inglation #2: Include $123 per diem (also for 372 days) = $45,756

Inflation #3: Include payments for expenses while not in session = $7,083

Total salary for pension calculation: $83,216

Government employees enrolled in KPERS and hired before July 1, 2009, make a 4 percent employee contribution. State employees hired after that date contribute 6 percent.

Legislators’ make the same percentage contribution but it is based on their annualized total pay and expenses of $83,216. The contribution is 42 or 65 percent of their actual $7,979 annual base pay only.

KPERS is currently reported to have an $8.3 billion gap between what’s been promised to the 260,000 active, inactive and retired state workers through 2033 and the projected resources it will have to pay those benefits. A special commission has been created to find ways to close the gap.

The $8.3 billion gap is expected to more than double under new pension reporting rules likely to take effect by 2014.


JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 6 months ago

I meant to say "should NOT pay" in my previous post...


JayhawkFan1985 2 years, 6 months ago

The radical right wing agenda led by the Koch Industries and their cronies at the Kansas Policy Institute are engaging in a "Cultural Revolution" in this state designed to make all Kansans take a "Great Leap Backward." They are doing the same thing that the Taliban did in Afganistan. In their worldview, women are chattel and as property have no "rights" and even if they did, the Koch brothers postulate that their tax dollars should pay for governmental services they disagree with. Of course, they're ok with gutting state government so they will be free to rape the environment and mistreat their workers.


Commenting has been disabled for this item.