Skip to main content

Rick Perry
Good for Rick Perry, bad for Texas women.
(Mario Anzuoni/Reuters)

Monday, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction saying Texas could not prohibit Medicaid recipients from going to Planned Parenthood for things like mammograms. Emphasis on the "temporary," though, because Tuesday, an appeals court ruled that Texas can exclude Planned Parenthood. And of course Rick Perry's administration is jumping on that:

The ruling, by Judge Jerry Smith of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, reversed a lower court ruling Monday in favor of the family planning organization. The decision on Tuesday means the state is free for now to enforce a new rule banning Planned Parenthood from the Women's Health Program, Texas officials said.

"At this point, Planned Parenthood is not an eligible provider in the Women's Health Program," Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, said on Tuesday.

Because of Rick Perry's determination to keep low-income Texas women from getting cancer screening at clinics that also might provide abortions—even though in Texas, Planned Parenthood separated its abortion services from its other services specifically to address that "concern"—Texas stands to lose Medicaid funding for basic health and family planning services, since its restriction of free choice of health care providers is in violation of federal law.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Tue May 01, 2012 at 08:45 AM PDT.

Also republished by Sluts, Income Inequality Kos, and Abortion.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Why is that name familiar? (14+ / 0-)

    Oh right, because this guy proved that he is a partisan hack just a few weeks ago:

    (CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.


    The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.


    Smith made his intentions clear minutes after the DOJ attorney began her argument, jumping in to ask: "Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?"

    I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

    by Mike S on Tue May 01, 2012 at 08:57:13 AM PDT

    •  Yet more wingnut "judicial activism:" (7+ / 0-)

      I especially like this second one.

      Smith wrote the majority opinion in Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), in which the Fifth Circuit struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions at the University of Texas School of Law. Seven years later, the decision was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

      In Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA, 947 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1991), Judge Smith wrote the panel opinion which required the United States Environmental Protection Agency to use cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether to ban a toxic substance.

      In Regents of the University of California v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 482 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2007), Smith wrote the majority opinion barring securities fraud claims against third parties who aided in securities fraud but did not directly mislead investors. The decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148 (2008).

      Smith was one of three judges on a panel that heard the appeal to Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar, a case challenging the U.S. Department of the Interior's six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling in deep water that was adopted in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent oil spill. The Fifth Circuit panel denied the government's emergency request to stay the lower court's decision pending appeal.[2]

      I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

      by Mike S on Tue May 01, 2012 at 09:03:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  More Here About How Wrong Smith Is To Do This. (0+ / 0-)

      Several things are significant about this very brief order. First, Judge Smith is a court of appeals judge, and it is very rare for an appeals judge to act alone in this way. Federal appeals courts almost always act as three judge panels, and for very good reason. Judge Yeakel is no less a federal judge than Judge Smith, and he is no less competent that Smith to interpret the Constitution. A court of appeals’ legitimacy generally flows from the fact that it brings more minds to a legal question than a trial court — but this cannot happen when a single judge acts alone.

      It is true, as Judge Smith notes, that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure permit a single judge to stay a lower court’s decision, but that rule only permits the judge to do so in “an exceptional case in which time requirements make that procedure impracticable.” It’s not at all clear what kind of exceptional time constraints justified allowing Judge Smith to act alone here rather than first consulting with two of his colleagues before issuing this unusual order.

      More importantly, it’s unlikely that Smith gave his order much thought at all before handing it down. Judge Yeakel handed down his order weeks after this case was filed, and he produced a 24 page explanation of why it was justified. Smith spent, at most, a few hours — and he offered no explanation whatsoever.

  •  Preview of coming Romney attractions (9+ / 0-)

    This wingnut attitude is limited pretty much to Texas and a few other bastions of backwardness now.

    Just imagine what a Romney Administration would be like.  We might see Rick Perry as Secy of HHS, or someone like him.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Tue May 01, 2012 at 09:08:11 AM PDT

  •  None of these guys likes the idea of low-income (10+ / 0-)

    women OR children or men getting preventative care of kind. They dislike the very idea.

    Frankly, if abortion were strictly illegal nation-wide, they'd still be against any public funding for preventative and catastrophic care for the indigent and low-income families. Because they hate low income families. Especially if they are brown.

    This isn't just about Planned Parenthood.

    Santorum: Man on Dog; Romney: Dog on Car. Ren and Stimpy: Dog on Cat

    by commonmass on Tue May 01, 2012 at 09:12:13 AM PDT

    •  Evidence is found on the legal aid side (5+ / 0-)

      The extent to which republicans have gutted legal aid speaks volumes to your point.  Reagan hated it and in the mid-90s the range of services legal aid could advise on was drastically limited.

      Legal aid is a useful parallel because, like you say commonmass, without the cover of abortion, the real motives are clearly visible.

      Take my vote for granted at your peril.

      by VetGrl on Tue May 01, 2012 at 09:47:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Strikes me that a quick name change would be (0+ / 0-)


    Why is there so much insanity in Texas following Ann Richards?

    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Tue May 01, 2012 at 10:33:05 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site