Court Upholds States Rights to Restrict Funding to Abortion Providers

MAY 31, 2005, JEFFERSON CITY, MO – On May 25 th Circuit Court Judge Werner Moentmann upheld legislation restrictions on state family planning appropriations, ruling that Planned Parenthood did not qualify for receipt of state family planning funds because it provides abortions.

The suit was filed by Daniel Shipley, owner of Gateway Medical Research in St. Charles and longtime pro-life supporter, against the Department of Health and Senior Services, Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri (PPKM) and Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region (PPSLR). The suit stated that PPKM and PPSLR were ineligible to receive certain state family planning funds appropriated by Missouri’s General Assembly for fiscal year 2000 and 2003. The suit also requested that funds dispersed by the Director of the Department of Health to PPKM and PPSLR should be returned to the state.

Mr. Shipley, a parishioner of St. Vincent DePaul’s Parish in Dutzow, was pleased with the ruling. Shipley stated, “My checkbook is a lot lighter but my self esteem is way up.”

Although Missouri law does not specifically authorize the state to spend tax dollars on family planning, beginning in 1994, the state budget included funding for family planning. Planned Parenthood contracted with the state to provide family planning services. This raised strong objections from the pro-life community objecting to state money supporting organizations like Planned Parenthood that counsel, refer for and perform abortions. In the late 1990s, the

General Assembly included restrictions drafted by the Missouri Catholic Conference in the appropriations for the Department of Health, providing that no public money should be spent to either directly or indirectly subsidize abortion or abortion services.

Shipley filed the suit after Attorney General Jay Nixon failed twice to defend the appropriations restrictions after the restrictions were challenged in federal and state courts by Planned Parenthood. “I knew that our pro-abortion Attorney General Jay Nixon was the kiss of death on this issue. So I decided to step in and get the case won on its merits” Shipley said.

In earlier lawsuits, Attorney General Jay Nixon chose to represent the interests of the Director of the Department of Health who sought to contract with Planned Parenthood rather than preserving the efficacy of the appropriation restriction passed by the General Assembly into law.

Attorney Robert Nienhuis, who represented Shipley, said, “The Department of Health took what the legislature did and distorted the language of the law in ways that allow for Planned Parenthood to get money but because Planned Parenthood is so closely connected with abortion providers we believe that the law was violated in having these funds go to Planned Parenthood.”

In the federal district court proceedings, the federal trial court found in favor of Planned Parenthood, but the decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

In 1999, the 8 th Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the federal trial court, referencing the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan, allowing states to prohibit abortionists from receiving state money by insisting on complete separation of abortion activities conducted by abortion affiliates from the activities of grantee organizations that receive state money. The Court of Appeals ordered the federal district court to allow state courts to determine whether the state’s restrictions on the family planning appropriations were consistent with the Rust requirements.

Thereupon, the Circuit Court in Cole County found in favor of the appropriation restrictions, but on appeal the Missouri Supreme Court found that the Attorney General had a conflict of interest in representing both the state Department of Health and the interests of the state in preserving the appropriation restrictions. The case was sent back to the circuit court, which again found in

favor of the appropriation restrictions, but the state Supreme Court again found that the Attorney General’s actions resulted in a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court stated in its decision that the Attorney General could either step out of the case altogether or dismiss the case. Attorney General Nixon chose the latter, dismissing the state case and agreeing to dismissal of the federal case, and avoided a substantive decision of this issue.

During oral arguments the second time this case was before the state Supreme Court, the Court invited the legislature to codify in statute the appropriation restrictions at issue in this case. Legislation was filed in 2003 to resolve this matter; however the bill never passed out of the Senate. Subsequent to the dismissal of the original state case, Daniel Shipley brought suit in state courts, using taxpayer standing to litigate the issue of the permissibility of these appropriation restrictions.

The ruling in the Shipley case is the fourth time the courts have allowed Missouri to prohibit abortionists from receiving state money by insisting on complete separation of abortion activities conducted by abortion affiliates from the activities of grantee organizations that receive state money.

In his decision Judge Werner stated “…all other appropriation bills placing similar restrictions on the expenditure of state funds for family planning services did not and do not violate the United States Constitution or the Missouri Constitution.”

Deacon Larry Weber, Executive Director of the Missouri Catholic Conference was pleased with the ruling. He stated, “This is the third time the courts have upheld the constitutionality of Missouri’s restricting public money from either directly or indirectly subsidizing abortion or abortion services.” Weber said, “Similar language was in SB 2 and could be easily addressed during the special session in September.”

"This is great news for all pro-life taxpayers in the state," said Samuel Lee of Campaign Life Missouri.  "If Judge Moentmann's order stands after any appeals by Planned Parenthood, the

State of Missouri will be completely out of the business of directly or indirectly subsidizing the abortion industry."

Lee noted that based on the previous history of this and similar lawsuits, he expects Planned Parenthood to appeal the circuit court's decision.  "Planned Parenthood's lifeblood is government funding.  If the flow of tax dollars is cut off from them and other agencies that perform and promote abortions, they know it will be a serious hit to their operations."

Shipley commented that he was ready for any appeals that Planned Parenthood might file. “Legally, I’m a junk-yard dog,” he said.