Federal judge blocks measure targeting Planned Parenthood

Posted August 19, 2011
Updated August 20, 2011

A federal judge in NC's Middle District has issued a temporary injunction staying a state-mandated block to public funding for NC's Planned Parenthood clinics.

The ruling posted this evening by Judge James Beaty Jr. grants a request by Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina to block the implementation of a provision in this year's budget that would cut off any funds - even federal - that pass through the state to Planned Parenthood. The block will stay in place until the lawsuit that prompted it is resolved.

Republican legislative leaders said the block was necessary because Planned Parenthood is the leading provider of abortions in North Carolina. But existing law already specifies that taxpayer dollars cannot be used to subsidize abortions.

The state and federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives is earmarked for family planning, primary health care for low-income women, and testing for sexually transmitted diseases.

Democrats who opposed the budget provision said it would make health care less accessible to low-income women in many areas of North Carolina. Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland, even suggested the provision might be unconstitutional because it singles out one entity - Planned Parenthood - for legal action. Beaty agreed with both those assertions in his ruling.

Planned Parenthood of North Carolina sued to block the provision in federal court in July, saying its free-speech rights were being violated. 

The ruling follows similar injunctions by judges in Indiana and Kansas, where GOP legislatures approved similar provisions cutting off Planned Parenthood's funding.  Both states say they'll appeal the ruling.


This blog post is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • matthewwood007 Aug 25, 2011

    It's a well rounded education and a penchant for scrabble Mr. Troll. And if your comments dont make it through the "gatekeeper" maybe you should check the dictionary and look up decorum

  • marktroll Aug 25, 2011

    since LL deletes all my comments here i guess i have to keep it all nicey nicey. those of you that are so entrenched in the lib agenda that you must write off those that disagree with you by trying to put them in a box- you are only showing how far out of touch you yourself are from the issues. mwood while you browse the dictionary while writing your next post, go ahead and look up cretin.

  • timbo10.0 Aug 25, 2011

    "negating our election rights and wreaking havoc on our nation."

    Apparently, you missed the part in Social Studies on the checks and balances of government.

  • matthewwood007 Aug 25, 2011

    @marktroll "every valid point" what? Are we in the same debate club for you to so easily encapsulate my roster of argumentation....Obviously not

  • matthewwood007 Aug 25, 2011

    This issues is polarized already...we Democrats are not expounding such points about defunding are we? Look at all the efforts (ie Kansas, Ohio and north carolina) that are trying to legislate us out of adhereing to Roe v. Wade...it's part and parcel to the agenda.....and not of the progressives. The "protect the tax payer issue' is a useful red-herring.
    "On the record" is a funny phrase, like I am without the true conviction it takes to be forthright??!?!!? Silly Rabbit tricks are for those without the spine to be disagreed with

  • marktroll Aug 25, 2011

    lol go on the record saying that the precident for unborn victims was set by "right wing activist" judges. more nonesense. people are split on destroying a life in the womb, but what is in question here, is if tax payer money should go to fund this organization.
    and stop trying to deflect EVERY valid point by branding it with some sort of "right wing" stamp. that doesnt decrease the validity of the point, it just shows that you have polarized yourself from it.

  • matthewwood007 Aug 24, 2011

    @ marktroll Very Clever though, but really what you would want would be the prosecution of the woman and the elimination of a womens right to privacy and control over her body.

  • matthewwood007 Aug 24, 2011

    That action was designed provide a definition of life soas to under cut Roe v. Wade....right wing ideological activism

  • marktroll Aug 24, 2011

    yes matthew its controversial. but if pregnant woman is killed, the murderer is charged with double murder now bc NC recognizes the life in the womb. so i guess if the pregnant woman was planning for an abortion then the murderer get a reduced charge right?

  • matthewwood007 Aug 23, 2011

    Geeze, when will you get it that the fundemental basis of a womans individual rights start with the right to control her reproductivity......................."controversial beginnings" you mean like a supreme court ruling