SCOTUS declines to take Planned Parenthood case
Newly confirmed Justice Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice Roberts and the Court’s liberal bloc in declining to take Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast. Kavanaugh’s decision not to take the case raises concerns as to whether he is as pro-life as hoped.
Carrie Severino— chief counsel and policy director to the Judicial Crisis Network— provided insightful analysis on the Court’s decision not to take the case in her article “Justice Thomas to Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh: We’re Here to Do a Job.”
The issue in the case was whether Medicaid patients can sue to challenge a state’s determination as to who qualifies as a Medicaid provider under federal law. This suit arose after several states disqualified Planned Parenthood as a state Medicaid provider after finding that it had engaged in “the illegal sale of fetal organs” and “fraudulent billing practices.”
Justice Thomas, who dissented and was joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch, chastised the majority for not taking the case, suspecting they did not want to take the case because it involved Planned Parenthood and tangentially the controversial topic of abortion.
Although it was disappointing that Justice Kavanaugh did not want to take the case, the fact that it did not directly involve abortion leaves open the possibility that he could be as pro-life as hoped.
To read Severino’s article, click here.
ABA Journal highlights CAP-supported bill SB 1393
“For more than two decades, state courts have wrestled with how to settle disputes over frozen embryos when couples divorce or otherwise split. In such cases, one spouse typically wants to keep the embryos to eventually conceive children, while the other doesn’t. . . But a first-of-its-kind law would end that uncertainty in Arizona,” writes Mark Walsh in the December issue of the ABA Journal.
CAP-supported bill SB 1393— signed into law during the 2018 legislative session— makes clear that when there are disputed embryos in a divorce proceeding, public policy in Arizona favors awarding the embryos to the spouse that wants them for the purpose of having children.
“This new law strikes a balance between the interests of both spouses. One spouse can have the embryos for the purpose of having children, and the other spouse has no obligation as to any resulting child,” says Michael Clark, Vice President of Policy and General Counsel at Center for Arizona Policy.
Read the entire article here.
Championing Freedom Together. Every. Single. Day.
Good public policy happens in Arizona when a problem, such as the situation in which Ruby Torres found herself, meets a legislative solution, found here in SB 1393. There are 164 such examples in CAP’s 24-year history, and Championing Freedom Together, you make this incredible advocacy work possible for people like Ruby – so Arizona families can thrive!
As we approach the end of 2018, CAP must finish the year in the strongest possible financial position. This morning, we’re asking our 5 Minutes for Families friends to consider making a tax-deductible contribution in support of good public policy in Arizona. Thank you for standing with us! Click here to contribute.