State attorneys suggested in a brief filed in August that Planned Parenthood should just separate its services to ensure no public money goes toward abortion. While officials with the state group say they're open to that, the outcomes of similar battles in Missouri and Texas give them pause.
Texas set up a Medicaid waiver program in 2005 to provide family planning services for low-income women but banned abortion providers from receiving any of the funds. In response, that state's Planned Parenthood formed a separate abortion affiliate.....
Indiana state Sen. Scott Schneider, author of the proposal to defund Planned Parenthood, called the organization's split in Texas a "superficial" one. He said the group simply "moved the abortions to the second floor."
In Colorado, abortion protester Jo Ann Scott has agreed to pay two women $750 each for blocking their way into a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic.
The agreement signed Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer states Scott, 59, will not to use "force, threat of force or physically obstructing any person because that person is or has been obtaining or providing reproductive health services."Here's the Justice Department complaint against the Scotts which originally sought $5,000 from Jo Ann Scott for each individual and a $15,000 civil penalty for allegedly touching one woman on the shoulder and poking another person (not the abortion client) in the back and pushing them in the chest.
Her husband, Kenneth Scott, is accused of having "physically obstructed patients and staff," on 10 occasions; a federal lawsuit against him is pending, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
Here's another poor pro-abortion editorial in the New York Times. This one is on the Protect Life Act. As usual, the take their talking points directly from NARAL and Planned Parenthood and provide not the slightest bit of evidence that the legislation would allow hospital to refuse to perform emergency abortions on women whose lives were in danger. The note that the sponsor Rep. Pitts disagrees with this assessment of his legislation but then simply assert they are right and he is wrong.
Evidence? Who needs that when you can just throw out wild accusations?