HHS Pushes Back On States Defunding Planned Parenthood Over Videos

FILE - In this Sept. 18, 2007 file photo, protesters march near a Planned Parenthood location in Aurora, Ill. Some Illinois lawmakers are seeking to require annual inspections for all the state's abortion clinics, mo... FILE - In this Sept. 18, 2007 file photo, protesters march near a Planned Parenthood location in Aurora, Ill. Some Illinois lawmakers are seeking to require annual inspections for all the state's abortion clinics, more than three years after officials took steps to reinforce the system following a report by The Associated Press that some facilities had gone 15 years without an inspection. (AP Photo/Stacie Freudenberg, File) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

States that have sought to cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood after an anti-abortion “sting” video campaign have been warned by the Obama administration that efforts to block such funding may not be legal, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

According to the Journal, the Department of Health and Human Services contacted state officials in Alabama and Louisiana earlier this month to express concern about that the states’ moves to end their Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood over the videos. Medicaid recipients can use funds for preventative services from the organization like cancer screenings, but federal funding for abortions in most cases is already prohibited by law.

Under HHS guidance released in 2011, states cannot block Medicaid funding to providers on the basis of the other services offered, the Wall Street Journal said, and that memo was sent to state officials after their announcements.

State officials told the Journal that they were allowed to end the contracts. Although courts have sided with Planned Parenthood in past legal battles over Medicaid funding, anti-abortion activists countered to the Journal that in this case, states are blocking the funding over criminal activity, which is permitted by the 2011 memo.

Backers of the “sting” videos — which a group going by the name ‘Center for Medical Progress’ began releasing last month — say they show that Planned Parenthood is illegally profiting from the donation of aborted fetus tissue to researchers. The reproductive health organization argues the videos are heavily edited and the only fees charged for the tissues are to reimburse the extra procurement costs, as allowed by the law.

Eleven states have opened investigations into Planned Parenthood’s operations (two of which have already closed their investigations after finding no evidence of wrong doing), as have national lawmakers, who are currently weighing defunding Planned Parenthood on a national level.

In addition to Louisiana (where the Planned Parenthood clinics do not offer abortion) and Alabama, New Hampshire has also sought to block Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funds, according to The Journal.

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. Federal money–Can’t live with it, can’t live without it.

  2. Especially in the “taker” states.

  3. I’m expecting the conservative “innocent until proven guilty” crowd will be tripping over themselves in the rush to support Planned Parenthood in this case.

  4. “Evidence? We don’t need no stinking evidence…”

  5. “…states are blocking the funding over criminal activity, which is permitted by the 2011 memo.”

    I guess I missed the proceedings where this contention was adjudicated and found true.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

15 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for jw1 Avatar for clunkertruck Avatar for mrdependable Avatar for mjv135 Avatar for leftflank Avatar for humpback Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for lallen56 Avatar for sniffit Avatar for upwitoulz Avatar for Talibaptist Avatar for kitty Avatar for suicide_arsonist Avatar for ronbyers Avatar for occamsrazor2 Avatar for mollyjb Avatar for isakindamagic Avatar for bplewis24

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: