Bonneville Phoenix Network
 KTAR News
 Arizona Sports
92.3 FM KTAR

Judges grill Arizona lawyer over anti-abortion law

SAN FRANCISCO — Two federal appeals court judges expressed skepticism
Wednesday about an Arizona law that disqualified Planned Parenthood and other
health providers that perform abortions from receiving public funds for other
medical services.

Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Marsha Berzon and Jay Bybee grilled
attorney Steven Aden during a hearing about the law. Aden, an attorney with the
Alliance Defending Freedom, argued that Arizona had a broad power to determine
that Planned Parenthood, and other organizations targeted by the law, were not
qualified Medicaid providers, allowing the state to withhold from them Medicaid

According to the Medicaid statute, anybody eligible for medical assistance can
get it from an organization or person “qualified to perform the service or
services required.”

Aden said since the Medicaid statute does not further define “qualified,” the
state should have broad powers to determine its meaning.

“They have the authority to impose reasonable qualifications,” Aden said.

But Bybee and Berzon seemed to take issue with Aden’s construction of the
state’s authority. Bybee said Arizona’s interpretation of Medicaid law would
open the door to a broad range of restrictions on medical providers.

Alice Clapman, representing Planned Parenthood and one doctor who are the
plaintiffs in the original lawsuit, was spared the intense scrutiny faced by
Aden. Clapman told the court that the defendants were qualified because they
were competent medical providers, meeting the standards of the Medicaid act.

“They have both been providing Medicaid services for decades,” she said.

A federal district judge ruled in February that Arizona’s legislation violated
federal Medicaid law. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Neil Wake prompted an
appeal from the state.

The law’s supporters said it would ensure that no public money subsidizes

Opponents, including Planned Parenthood, said it would disrupt care for people
who need other services such as cancer screenings.

The appeals court did not immediately issue a decision.


comments powered by Disqus