MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A conservative legal group claims in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that Minnesota taxpayers have been wrongfully charged for more than 37,000 elective abortions for indigent women since 1999.
The Alliance Defending Freedom argues that state government is allowed to pay for abortions for indigent women only for "therapeutic reasons," including when the life or health of the woman is in danger or in cases of rape or incest, under state laws and a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision.
But the group, citing state health department data it reviewed, said the state paid for thousands of abortions that it believes did not meet that standard.
The lawsuit cites health department figures showing that Minnesota medical assistance programs paid for 47,095 abortions on indigent women from 1999 through 2011. The lawsuit claims the state's numbers indicate that — at most — only 10,044 of those abortions may have qualified under the 1995 court decision.
The lawsuit says that means the state paid for at least 37,051 abortions that weren't medically necessary, without the legal authority to do so.
The ADF obtained the key data under the state's Data Practices Act, which allows the public access to government data.
The lawsuit, filed in Ramsey County District Court in St. Paul, names Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson. It seeks injunctions to eliminate the use of public funds for non-therapeutic abortions, as well as a halt to public funding of all abortions until the department can show that public funds won't be misused. It also asks the court to direct the department to recover any unlawful payments made to abortion providers.
And it also asks the court to dissolve the injunction enforcing Supreme Court's 1995 ruling, known as Doe v. Gomez, which held that the state can't deny abortions to women on medical assistance "when the procedure is necessary for therapeutic reasons."
The Department of Human Services issued a brief statement saying it was reviewing the factual and legal claims in the complaint and that it would file a timely response with the court.
The lawsuit does not name Planned Parenthood, which is Minnesota's largest abortion provider and inevitably would be affected by any further restrictions on state funding for abortions. Spokeswoman Jennifer Aulwes said the organization does not comment on lawsuits when it's not a party to them.
Steven Aden, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, said the numbers cited in the lawsuit represent the "best assessment" the group could make based on the statistics available. He said a fuller picture of the "illegitimate public funding of elective abortions" will emerge as the case proceeds.
Minnesota spends about $1.5 million annually on abortions for indigent women, the lawsuit says.
"It's a gross abuse of taxpayer dollars in the state of Minnesota and an unfortunate tragedy as well," Aden said.
The data came from forms that providers are required to submit to the state on every abortion they perform, and include the reasons for the abortions.
Abortion providers also must submit separate forms to receive payments for patients on public assistance. The allowed reasons on that form include unspecified "other health reasons," which was the reason cited for 99.7 percent of the 19,295 publicly funded abortions from 2006 to 2010, according to the lawsuit. That suggests providers are abusing it for abortions that don't really qualify, the group claims.
The situation has been compounded by the Department of Human Services' "lack of meaningful review of the medical necessity of the abortions for which it has been paying. As a result, a majority of abortions that have been paid for with public funds since at least 1999 have been performed for non-therapeutic reasons and in violation of the Gomez injunction," the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit also injects a racial element into the debate. The two named plaintiffs, Denise and Brian Walker, are an African-American couple, and it claims a disproportionate number of the disputed abortions were performed on African-American women. The lawsuit says blacks make up about 5 percent of the state's population, but that 40 percent of publicly funded abortions in Minnesota from 1999 to 2011 were performed on African-American women, or 19,152 total.
The lawsuit says they're "especially aggrieved" that the effect "is to disproportionately inhibit the growth of the African American population in this state."
Aden defended the racial angle, saying the Walkers "and many other Minnesotans don't want to see their tax dollars going to elective abortions that disproportionately affect the African-American community."
___
Online:
Alliance Defending Freedom information on lawsuit: http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/7821
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Comments (29)
Add commentIt means
that we were all billed for contract murder that we didn't sponser, eyolf. HOW about people like YOU, that sponser MURDER, reimburse those of us that don't, the difference after the other costs? I also want people like you to pay the ongoing costs of counciling for the women that decide to murder their children to save you those other costs you mentioned. Please tell me..... How can you walk into a church and reconcile your advocation of Murder? please tell me. small and quiet? PM if you want, I just don't understand you on this.
Eyolf
I beg to differ. Have you ever researched all the organizations out there who provide services to unwed mothers across this country? There are several in Brainerd alone. I really doubt that there is a significant number of pro-lifers who simply "want someone to suffer." That statement alone betrays an extremist view.
It's no different than with any other issue. It's always the goofballs that get the press. Just because two candidates suggest that abortion should not be allowed even in the case of rape, that doesn't mean that all conservatives agree with them. Are we to believe then that all Muslims are jihadists? That's why we have a representative form of government.
Leftists don't listen any better than anyone else. In spite of all the back and forth we do on here, I doubt any of us have a real good handle on the reality of the situation. The best way to effect change is to roll up the sleeves and get involved, not in the political situation (though that's important too), but in a messy world where things don't always go the way we'd like.
"And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones..."
If the GOP would give up on curtailing peoples right to vote,
redefining marriage , shoot first leg. , elimination of healthcare reform, defunding Planned Parenthood & Big Bird, maybe they could focus on that Personhood amendment and fill our prisons with all those outlaw Medical people !
Problem solved !!!
**** Alliance Defending Freedom**** - You have to be kidding me , more like whack jobs creating distractions.
The cost
The cost of an abortion is nothing compared to the cost of raising a child. I don't aprove of abortions, but we complain about Obama Care and birth control. People protest plan parenthood. Plan parenthooh is not all about abortion. My daughter went there for free exams and free birth control while in college, before she had medical insurance, through the catholic hospital she works at. When I had my children it cost about 1000. to have a baby now it is more like 30000. it cost me on average 30000. to raise my children now it cost well over 250000. to raise a child if a person can't afford an abortion on thier own and need state assistance to pay for one, who would pay for the raising of that baby. Think about it if a person chooses an abortion, do you think that child would be better off with that parent, we have way to many abused children in this country. I for one would rather have tax money pay for an abortion then have taxes pay to raise that baby, or have that baby born into poverty.
... and these are the
... and these are the discussions that we are lowered to when you remove personal responsibility and consequences from the equation. If you are raised with the idea that no one will help you but yourself, you can avoid having to make the decision of abortion or adoption because you made the right decision in the first place. (and bought your own damned birth-control)
Well, I think that decision
Well, I think that decision about personal responsibility must not be placed solely on women. In fairness, if men would learn to keep their flies zipped, then we wouldn't have to deal with the issue of unwanted pregnancy either.
But as it stands, it is a catch 22. We are talking about women of no means who find themselves pregnant. Why? Well maybe they traded sex for food, a place to stay, drugs, whatever. Sex may be the only currency they have. And if one is THAT poor, then you can hardly expect that they would have money for birth control as a designated priority. So....given that these are women of no means, with no homes, and prevention has already become a moot point once they are pregnant, then what? Does the taxpayer fund an abortion or does the taxpayer fund raising a child in the system? Which costs less? Because honestly, whether in favor of abortion or not, that is the choice we face in reality.
I, personally, am not in favor of abortion. But I am open minded enough to realize that not every person shares my religion, my morals, or my sense of right and wrong. And I also understand that I can't force them to, no should I attempt to force them to. Abortion is out there. If it's not legal, then they will just move out of sight and be performed under less safe conditions. You can't wipe out abortion until you wipe out unwanted pregnancy. And you can't wipe out unwanted pregnancy while we have women poor enough to use sex as currency, drug addiction, teenagers with raging hormones, and men who refuse to check their primal urges.
And perhaps the reason that
And perhaps the reason that we don't trust that individuals will step up is why government agencies came to be? It's possible. Many individuals choose to turn a blind eye to those in need.
Perhaps
if women would revert to the old school mentality that it's their responsibility (since it's their body that of course, carries the child) to prevent illegitimate births, the world would be better off.
How a woman can blame a man (in any case other than rape) for uncrossing her knees, removing her undergarments, positioning her, and how on earth a man would ever do any of these without her assistance, knowledge and/or permission (other than rape) is of course, ridiculous.
When women admit that birth control begins and ends with them, unwanted births and children will end.
Of course, the old smoke screen and baloney of an excuse that it takes two will come up and be thrown about like its the truth. But it is the woman that bears 100% responsibility to control the issue. Period. She carries the child, she knows the consequences, she isn't fooling anyone with the "he took advantage of me" routine.
blah blah
Pay for my abortion because I dont have money...pay for my kid because I dont have money...
blah blah...
When does it become the irresponsible persons responsibility for their actions?
Yeah mistakes happen, its called irresponsibility. If you are old enough to choose to partake in "adult activities" then you are old enough to accept your mistake.
Then there is the "Oh, its not the childs fault" routine. There are plenty of people who wish they had children who are adopting. Do you people realize there is a waiting list for adoption?
Sure there are kids that are in foster care...if I adopt, which is in the plans, it will not be a fetal alcohol or drug baby.
When does one start charging the mother for drug and alcohol use during her pregnancy? Oh thats right, "It was a stressful time for the mother to be" or "she didnt want the baby anyway" so its forgiven.
Wow!
Careful there, you are displaying logic and other people on here don't like that!
FWIW
Sandra Fluke is now a candidate for Person of the Year. (But I guess if BO can receive a Nobel Peace prize, anything is possible.)
If the right had treated Fluke with courtesy and indifference
She would have disappeared back into oblivion. Their attacks propelled her to the center of attention. She was the personification and poster child for the college aged population of the mistreatment of women during the election campaign by the old men of the GOP.
Lou
I'm sad that you would only consider abortion or raising the child in poverty. Consider adoption please.
The alternative, eyolf, is education
and acceptance that birth control should be readily available.
If you chose to abstain, that is a workable alternative, too.
Tolerance on all sides should be practiced on here. I admire the way Sandra Fluke stood up for her college friend in spite of the backlashing she experienced after being denied the right to speak before a congressional committee composed solely of men. She is a law school grad with a bright future.
eyolf said:
"To be honest, I was responding to F-n-B, upthread. Just once I'd like to see another conservative point out that voices like his are not necessarily the definitive voice in the republican party or conservatism as a whole."
Then I say:
I have never claimed to be that and I assure you that the majority of people hope you aren't the difinitive voice of the liberals as a whole.
Hop down off your high horse and lay off the re-worded baloney you just typed. If you were glad that 50,000 children died to make that stupid point it is proof positive that you and your ilk sponsor murder. I admit you pay the same sales taxes and other hidden exicise taxes as everyone else but submit that you probably pay zero federal income tax and probably collect a few "entitlements" so don't pretend to pay for the abortions or the shrinks that care for the victims of those same abortions.
WHY, do people like you always resort to the "class warfare option"? Your jealousy of people that worked and earned more than you gets sickening when you whine like this.
The years you wasted feeling sorry for yourself, instead of working to better your circumstances weren't the fault of the people you hate and continually try to downgrade on these forums. If you need a handout that bad I'll stop by and give you a few bucks.
As I said
your plan is for someone else to pay for everything, including your shortcomings. So you call people like me out and declare us to be unloving evil people because we want a little personal responsibility from the people that want all the help. People like you say we are "RICH" when all we are are people that either worked harder or didn't waste as much as the rest of you. It is about class warfare and I'll meet with you anytime to compare financial notes etc. You sir are the one that refuses to prove your accusations.
P.S.
I was indigent 3 times in my life. I don't need a google search or a daughter to spell it for me.
One time a church helped me out and I paid them back tenfold when I was able plus more. The other two times I pulled myself up alone and can document that for you if you want to disbelieve. You shouldn't talk down to people that you don't know feller because I haven't seen anything out of you that would allow you to talk down to anyone , ever.
No indeed intended.
I guess it about you dodging the truth again and showering us all with your hypocritical lies again. Get to work and try to pay some taxes. I don't want you to ruin a beautiful Arizona sunrise.
I disagree that birth control
I disagree that birth control is 100% of women's responsibility and that the only "surprise" pregnancy is either her fault or as a result of rape. That is an unfair burden placed on only half the population. Both sexes have urges, hormones and take pleasure from sex. Both partners need to be responsible. It does take 2 to tango. And what would men do if ALL women suddenly said, "NO"? Is that the reality you want? Do you think that reality is even possible? I mean, no form of birth control except abstinence is 100% effective, so unless you are actively trying to conceive a baby it looks like you are suggesting that nobody have sex ever. What are the chances of that?
What it is about is reality. We have unwanted pregnancies out there. We have women who are too poor to feed, cloth and shelter themselves who get pregnant. It doesn't matter whether it should or should not have happened or who is to blame. It is what it is. So now what do we do about it? Do we pay for an abortion? Do we force her to have the child unassisted out on the street (obviously, we don't want taxpayers to pay the $12,000.00 hospital bill for delivering a baby if we aren't willing to pay $500.00 for an abortion)? Do we force her to take that child with her and raise it the best she can with no home and no money? Do we pay welfare to support the child to adulthood so they can continue the cycle of poverty and welfare (as many do)? Do we mandate that the child be placed in the foster system to be adopted? Who pays for children in foster care? What happens if no adoptive family steps forward? Someone said below that they plan to adopt, but they don't want a fetal alcohol syndrome or drug addicted infant. I assume they mean they don't want a down sydrome, mentally handicapped, emotionally/behaviorly disturbed, or learning disabled child either. In reality, many of these children who would be born in poverty, to a woman with no prenatal care, would not be the perfect infant you want. And I do believe women should be prosecuted for using drugs and alcohol while pregnant, but that costs money too, and how can you logistically stop it? Women are pregnant long before the baby bump sticks out. And you can prosecute after the fact, but the damaged infant is already here by then.
As heartless as it seems, and speaking only of dollars and cents and burden to the taxpayer, it would seem that paying for the abortion would be the cheapest route.
Being pro-life needs to become more about what happens in the years following a baby's birth, not just about the months leading up to it.