Tag archives: 9th Circuit Court

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of the Protect Life Rule, Again

by Patrina Mosley , Connor Semelsberger, MPP

February 25, 2020

After a months-long legal battle, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Circuit) ruled 7-4 that the Protect Life Rule, which separates federal Title X Family Planning funding from abortion facilities, can go into full effect.

In July 2019, an 11-judge panel sitting en banc in the 9th Circuit reinforced a decision that the Protect Life Rule could go into effect temporarily while the merits of the case against the rule filed by Planned Parenthood and several liberal states were argued. Since this July ruling, HHS has enforced this new rule which requires physical and financial separation between clinics that receive Title X funds for family planning services and facilities that perform abortions. It also prohibits physicians at Title X family planning clinics from referring patients for abortions.

Yesterday, the 9th Circuit finally ruled that the Protect Life Rule is constitutional and can go into full effect. This victory in the historically liberal 9th Circuit is a welcome sight and was made possible in part by the great work of President Donald Trump and the U.S. Senate to confirm 51 federal appeals court judges, including two 9th Circuit judges who took part in yesterday’s ruling. However, it would not be a surprise if Planned Parenthood and the other plaintiffs decided to appeal this ruling all the way to the Supreme Court, but even at the highest court in the land there is precedent for the Protect Life Rule to be upheld. In 1991 in Rust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court upheld similar regulations governing Title X finalized under President Ronald Reagan. The decision in Rust was a crucial part of the opinion issued by the 9th Circuit yesterday, and suggests a similarly favorable outcome should this case reach the Supreme Court.

For far too long, the people’s tax dollars have been entangled with the abortion industry. Trump’s “gag rule” only gags the dishonesty and lack of integrity that has been taking place for decades, so ultimately the court’s decision to uphold the restrictions is a win for life and a win for women.

Under the Protect Life Rule, abortion is no longer considered to be “health care” or “family planning.” Abortion-performing entities like Planned Parenthood, who have decided not to comply with the new Title X restrictions, have by default opened up more opportunities for life-affirming health care centers like federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and Obria, which provide even more services to women than Planned Parenthood.

To see a list of the Grantees who voluntarily withdrew from Title X grant awards, see our blog here.

As a result of restoring integrity to the Title X regulations, there will be an increased diversity of health care providers available for women to choose from in the federal family planning program, and the taking of innocent life will no longer be accepted as “family planning” in America.

Ninth Circuit Marriage Decision: Take This JokePlease.

by Peter Sprigg

February 13, 2012

In the past, there has been controversy about American courts using foreign court decisions as an argument in favor of a particular decision.

But what about using jokes?

Thats exactly what the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did last week. In support of their ruling that adoption of Californias marriage amendment, Proposition 8, violated the Constitution, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the 2-1 majority in the case, consulted such eminent jurists as Shakespeare, Lincoln, Sinatra, and Marx. Groucho Marx, that is. Oh, and dont forget Monroe. Not James, the president, but Marilyn, the movie star.

These sources were cited by Judge Reinhardt to illustrate the social importance of marriage. He declared, We need consider only the many ways in which we encounter the word marriage in our daily lives and understand it, consciously or not, to convey a sense of significance. He proves the point with this passage:

Groucho Marxs one-liner, Marriage is a wonderful institution … but who wants to live in an institution? would lack its punch if the word marriage were replaced with the alternative phrase. So too with Shakespeares A young man married is a man thats marrd, Lincolns Marriage is neither heaven nor hell, it is simply purgatory, and Sinatras A man doesnt know what happiness is until hes married. By then its too late… . Had Marilyn Monroes film been called How to Register a Domestic Partnership with a Millionaire, it would not have conveyed the same meaning as did her famous movie … .

I wonder if it never occurred to Judge Reinhardt that quoting jokes might be taken as a less-than-serious way of arguing that amending the California constitution violates the Constitution of the United States. I also wonder if it even occurred to him that the four jokes he quoted were all ones denigrating marriage. They might make a reader puzzled as to why homosexuals are so desperate to redefine the institution in order to live in it.

In any case conservatives can legitimately say that Judge Reinhardts decision was a joke. The proof is right there, in Section V.B.

Archives