Skip to footer

Supreme Court won't reveal info about $1 million Planned Parenthood grant

The Supreme Court rejected a bid by a New Hampshire anti-abortion group to force the federal government to reveal information about a $1 million grant it made to Planned Parenthood. 

|
REUTERS/Delcia Lopez
Access Esperanza Clinic, offering Women's Health Care and Family Planning Services, is seen in Mission, Texas, September 22, 2015. Four years after cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood, the state of Texas says it has been able to rebuild its safety net, in what could be a model for Republicans in Congress who hope to defund the nation's largest family planning provider at the national level. Picture taken September 22, 2015.

The US Supreme Court has rejected an anti-abortion group’s appeal to force the federal government to disclose confidential records about a $1 million contract it made with Planned Parenthood in New Hampshire in 2011.

On Monday, the nine Supreme Court justices let stand a February ruling that allowed the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to withhold some documents in a freedom of information suit filed by New Hampshire Right to Life, an organization that opposes abortion.

The government had already disclosed some information regarding the contract, but the group sought more – including a document that explains how Planned Parenthood operates its clinics.

The decision is the latest development in the saga surrounding Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions in addition to health services for women. A series of videos produced by an anti-abortion group over the summer claimed to show that Planned Parenthood illegally sells fetal tissue to researchers for profit, leading to calls by Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion activists for an end to federal funding of health clinics run by the organization.

Planned Parenthood has denied the accusations, saying the videos were edited to be misleading and the group said that it acted legally in seeking reimbursement from researchers for post-abortion fetal tissue. The group receives about $500 million in federal funds every year, mostly in reimbursements through the Medicaid health insurance program.

The issue has divided Congress along party lines, with the Republican-dominated House of Representatives in September passing a bill that would block federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood. As The Christian Science Monitor reported at the time:

The bill by Rep. Diane Black (R) Tennessee, would shift Planned Parenthood’s federal payments to thousands of community health centers, which Republicans say would take on displaced patients.

Democrats said those community clinics are already overburdened and far away from the women who need them.

Both sides have accused the other of using the issue for political gain.

The latest Supreme Court ruling came amid dissent from the court’s two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. In a joint statement, the pair wrote that the decision “perpetuates an unsupported interpretation” of the federal Freedom of Information Act.

The high court's decision not to hear the dispute came days after the justices agreed on Friday to hear a challenge by abortion providers to parts of a strict, Republican-backed Texas law they claim seeks to shutter abortion clinics. It would be the court’s first major abortion case since 2007.

This report contains material from The Associated Press and Reuters. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Supreme Court won't reveal info about $1 million Planned Parenthood grant
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2015/1116/Supreme-Court-won-t-reveal-info-about-1-million-Planned-Parenthood-grant
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe