A federal appeals court has temporarily halted the enforcement of a federal government regulation that allows abortion providers to receive federal family planning money, but only in Ohio. The decision comes after state health officials argued that the policy was taking money away from them. This move marks another shift in federal policy regarding the funding of programs that provide abortion services or refer patients to such services.
The regulation in question was implemented by the Biden administration in 2021, allowing groups with abortion services to receive federal funding again. However, a dozen states with Republican attorneys general challenged the rule. Last year, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the Biden administration’s version of the rules could remain in effect during the legal challenge.
However, a majority of the three-judge panel from the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has now overruled that decision, but only as it applies to Ohio. The majority judges, Joan Larsen and Amul Thapar, both nominated by Republican former President Donald Trump, argued that Ohio was the only state that demonstrated irreparable harm from the policy. The state health department claimed it was receiving 20% less in federal family planning funding under the current policy than it did previously.
The judges noted that the decrease in funding was a result of Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio not applying for funding when referrals were banned. However, once referrals were allowed again, the group, which also provides abortions, reapplied and the state’s health department saw a decrease in funding by $1.8 million. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost commented that the state’s Planned Parenthood affiliate may need to make changes or risk losing funding.
The dissenting judge, Karen Nelson Moore, nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, disagreed with her colleagues, stating that they misunderstood the regulations.
It’s important to note that this decision only applies to Ohio, and the larger case challenging the funding rule remains in the court system. The landscape of abortion laws has significantly changed since the lawsuit was initially filed. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, allowing states to enact bans or strict limits on abortion. Ohio, for instance, enacted a ban on abortion after cardiac activity can be detected, approximately six weeks into pregnancy. However, a court blocked enforcement of the ban, and voters recently adopted an amendment to the state constitution enshrining the right to abortion.
This ongoing legal battle highlights the contentious nature of abortion regulation in the United States and the significant impact it has on healthcare providers, patients, and funding distribution. As the case progresses, it is expected to continue to draw attention and spark debates on the right to abortion and the role of federal funding in supporting reproductive healthcare services. Stay tuned for further updates on this issue.
