Rally To Restore Planned Parenthood To Women's Health Program Draws Hundreds to Capitol

by: Joe Deshotel

Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 07:30 PM CST

"More than half of the births today are Medicaid births. And so for my colleagues that are back there that do not like Medicaid and don't want to expand it and such they are taking the  fast track to make sure there are more people who need Medicaid."

Projections by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission estimate that low income women will give birth to as many as 23,760 babies in the 2014-15 biennium as a result of reduced access to birth control. That means the $73 million cut from the program will cost taxpayers $273 million in additional Medicaid services to those children.

Tweets of the Week: Rep. Donna Howard and Sen. Van de Putte Discuss #TXWomensHealth

by: Shelby Alexander

Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:30 AM CST

The chat was an opportunity to discuss what we can do to better advocate for sane solutions in response to the lack of adequate preventative care services for the women in our state.

Unfortunately, it clearly became an opportunity for fundamental anti-choicers to flood the hashtag stream with crazy talk about embryos that wasn't related to what was being discussed. Think "your birth control will cause your womb to be laden with baby corpses" kind of crazy. However, it benefitted the advocates involved to be able to contrast rational conversation from the oh-so-definitely-not rational.

The legislators did an excellent job with addressing the real issues at hand, and getting information out about the need for family planning in Texas.

Texas Planned Parenthood affiliates are working hard to bring women's health issues at the forefront, so make sure you sign up and get involved in their Take Action Tuesdays in the coming weeks!

Yesterday's Tweet chat reinforced that the lack of education about reproductive health in Texas is clearer than ever, which means we need to work that much harder to make the real issues apparent.

You can follow some of the top tweets after the jump!

Planned Parenthood Secures Injunction; Stays in Women's Health Program

by: Edward Garris

Thu Nov 08, 2012 at 04:09 PM CST

Planned Parenthood was seeking a temporary injunction in order to stay in the Texas Women's Health Program (WHP).  Today's injunction ensures that they will remain in the WHP until there can be a full trial on the merits.  

Today's ruling bodes well for Planned Parenthood and women's health, generally, but the practical outcome is uncertain.

On the positive side, Judge Yelenosky's ruling means that he believes there is a fairly good chance of success for Planned Parenthood's argument that Texas' move to expel it from the WHP violates Texas law.  In order to secure a temporary injunction, the court must find that the party seeking the temporary injunction must show the examining court that it has a cause of action against the defendant, a probable, imminent and irreparable injury in the interim, and a probable right to the relief sought.  The court's finding of the last element should come as no small comfort to Planned Parenthood.  

As we wrote on October 27, Planned Parenthood is both proxy and hostage in a war between the federal government and the state of Texas.  The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has stated publicly that it will cut off federal funding to the Texas WHP by January 1 if Texas expels Planned Parenthood from the WHP.  Texas has countered that it will establish its own WHP, but without federal dollars.  

There are two obstacles to this.  First, as Planned Parenthood is arguing, Texas' acts violate state law, specifically Texas Human Resources Code, Chapter 32, which authorizes the WHP subject to approval from the federal government.  If the federal government does not approve (and it doesn't), then the Texas program is inoperative and cannot run without violating Chapter 32.

Additionally, the federal government provides 90% of the funds necessary to run the WHP.  If HHS cuts off funding (as it has promised to do), Texas will have to scramble to make up the mind-boggling shortfall.

This leads to the uncertain aspect of today's ruling.  There is no word yet on whether the injunction and Planned Parenthood's continued participation in the WHP will cause HHS to reverse its stance and continue federal funding.  As a result, while the parties wait for trial, it is possible that the federal government could defund the Texas WHP anyway.

It will be interesting to see if the federal government attempts to intervene or otherwise participate in the case.  While Texas won the case on free speech grounds in the notably conservative Fifth Circuit federal appeals court, at issue is interpretation of a state law that refers to approval from the federal government.  States other than Texas also have similar laws - provisions that hinge state action on federal approval in order to secure federal funding for projects that improve the lives of citizens in those individual states (e.g.: think highway dollars).  If Texas' action and interpretation of its own law is upheld, this could embolden the governments of other conservative leaning states to follow the same suit and point to Texas as persuasive authority, if not binding precedent, to distance themselves from the federal government in the name of federalism.  

Planned Parenthood Scores Victory in Texas District Court

by: Edward Garris

Sat Oct 27, 2012 at 01:09 PM CDT

After a serious legal defeat Thursday at the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals it was all but assured that Texas would expel Planned Parenthood from the WHP.  The practical result was that thousands of low-income women across Texas would be denied access to women's health care.  However, Planned Parenthood quickly changed tactics and sued Texas in state court - rather than federal court - arguing that Texas' move to exclude Planned Parenthood from the WHP violated Texas law.  

According to the Austin-American Statesman, Judge Meachum set the case for a three-hour hearing on November 8.   The Statesman also reported that it was issued after a short hearing.  As a general matter, a hearing is not required for a temporary restraining order, as it is designed to be a truly temporary measure, put in place when the party requesting relief - in this case, Planned Parenthood - is threatened with immediate and irreparable injury.  It is noteworthy that Judge Meachum felt this standard had been met.  

As a result, at least until November 8, Planned Parenthood may remain in the WHP, thereby preserving the services it provides to low-income Texas women.  Notably, however, Planned Parenthood's continued presence in the program is good news for the other providers as well.  Since the eruption of the Planned Parenthood controversy, Texas had proposed instituting its own WHP, one that was not contingent on federal matching funds.  Matching funds is a slight misnomer as the federal government has been underwriting approximately 90% of the cost of the program, according to Bloomberg BusinessWeek.  Should Planned Parenthood and the federal dollars disappear, it is not difficult to imagine that the WHP could also disappear.  

As a procedural matter, the next step would be the November 8 hearing, when it will be decided whether a temporary injunction should be put into place until a full trial on the legality of Texas' action can be had.  The current order, as a matter of law, cannot last more than 14 days, and simply preserves the status quo.  If the November 8 hearing is inconclusive, the temporary restraining order could be extended for another 14 days, but only for good cause shown.  

Randy Weber - A Record Of Messin' With Texas Women

by: Joe Deshotel

Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 04:53 PM CDT

The event was billed as an opportunity to:

[Hear] Randy discuss his plans to get women in small business working again and share his experience in the Texas House where he passed landmark legislation in human trafficking and fought to balance the budget.

Having worked on legislation that helps to end human trafficking is laudable, but it does not excuse a record of proudly cutting funds for and access to woman's healthcare. When fighting to balance the budget means slashing the two-year family planning budget from $111 million to $38 million and cutting the Medicaid Woman's Health Program by $35 million, you earn the title as "bearer of the flag in the war against women." While Weber touts his success in the battle against Planned Parenthood, real Texas woman suffer. In March of this year the New York Times published an article in which a mother of 5 spoke about losing access to breast cancer screenings, birth control pills and other routine health exams after the cuts shutdown low income clinics. The state's non-partisan Legislative Budget Board estimated 284,000 woman would lose access to health care costing Medicaid about $230 million. The board's recommendation was to actually expand the program to save money.

Weber proudly co-authored Texas' controversial "trans-vaginal sonograms". Women who chose to have an abortion must now undergo a non-voluntary trans-vaginal probe and sign an affidavit stating the doctor attempted to find a heart beat and describe any visible human extremities of the fetus. The new law was described by Rep. Alvarado (D-Houston) as, "government intrusion at its best." Weber also sponsored an Amendment that would take $7.3 million from family planning, and divert it to a program focused on abortion alternatives. Its unclear how diverting the money from preventative care would actually decrease the number of abortions, since its indisputable that only women who can get pregnant have abortions. During debate Rep. Mike Villarreal (D-San Antonio) asked Weber if he thought birth control didn't work, his answer, "Not for those who get pregnant".  When asked if he used contraceptives himself Weber responded, "I don't think I know you well enough to go down this road". Of course, though he has chosen to go down this road with Texas women.  

By law Planned Parenthood can not use tax dollars to fund abortion clinics or even services within clinics that offer the procedure.  According to its website "95% of what Planned Parenthood health centers offer are preventive services that help our communities stay healthy." They test clients for STDs, provide convenient birth control, do adoption referrals and conduct other important treatments. This year alone Planned Parenthood of Central Texas will conduct 31,000 breast cancer screenings and educate about 14,000 teens and parents on preventing teen pregnancy. Even still, Randy Weber and the Republican Party tout fighting Planned Parenthood as its major legislative accomplishment on woman's issues. Texas woman are Independent and prefer to make their own choices about health care and its wise to remember - without choice there is no freedom.

Dispatches from the DNC: Women's Caucus, Blogger Briefing, and Castro Fever!

by: Katherine Haenschen

Tue Sep 04, 2012 at 02:00 PM CDT

Excitement is high among the Texans and non-Texans alike today in advance of Mayor Julian Castro's big keynote speech. His personal narrative, an only-in-America story that demonstrates how Democratic policies can provide opportunity for all, will be a key element of his message tonight. Our coverage of the speech and the events on the floor of the convention will start around 6:00 pm Texas time.

In the meantime, here's some of what has been going on at the DNC today.

Women's Caucus: The ladies were up and at 'em early this morning to hear from an impressive, all-star roster of female Democrats. I stopped by just in time to hear Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar rattle off the progress female Democrats have made in the upper chamber: we now have women chairing the Intelligence, Environmental, Veterans Affairs and Agriculture Committees in the Senate. However, Klobuchar made clear the stakes in this election: Republicans want to take women -- and women's basic reproductive rights -- back 50 years. She urged those in attendance to reach out to other women when they return home, find that common ground, talk to independent and Republican women, and spread the word.

The highlight of the morning was Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who gave a rousing speech, naming off the proud female Democratic and progressive standard bearers from Bella Abzug to Barbara Jordan. Brazile had the boisterous crowd on its feet repeatedly as she made clear that Mitt Romney and the Republican Party offer nothing for women.

Ashley Judd spoke briefly about the importance of access to birth control and the good work of Planned Parenthood, before handing off to proud daughter of Texas, Cecile Richards, who spoke passionately about everything President Obama has done to provide access for women -- all women -- to basic and reproductive healthcare. "Being a woman is no longer a pre-existing condition!" Richards triumphantly told the cheering crowd. She emphasized that if her mother was still around, she'd be telling women to get to work and make sure we elect Democrats up and down the ballot.


Blogger Briefing: I stopped by a mid-day blogger briefing with the Obama campaign, where staffer Brent Colburn had great things to say about Mayor Julian Castro's speech tonight. "We're very excited to have the mayor here," said Colburn. "His story really speaks to the opportunity that is inherent to the United States."

The Obama staff also emphasized the importance of the convention as an organizing tool. North Carolinians who wanted to attend Thursday's speech by the President could earn their way in by doing three three-hour volunteer shifts at a local OFA office. This model was used in Colorado in 2008 and produced many repeat volunteers through Election Day. The campaign will also be registering voters (woo!) at the arena on Thursday, making sure all of the President's supporters are ready to go for November. Additionally, over 4000 house parties are planned across the country for Thursday's speech.


Castro Fever! As I type this, MSNBC is featuring a preview of Mayor Julian Castro's speech tonight. Excitement is high, and folks across the country recognize Castro (and his brother Joaquin, soon to be a member of Congress) as rising stars. Everywhere I've gone today, from the Women's Caucus to the Blogger Briefing, from a pit-stop at the PPL to the Texas delegation shuttle bus (Ok that last one is a gimme), people have been buzzing about Castro. It's great to see someone from Texas gaining national attention for not embarrassing the state for once.

Not even the 3:00 a.m. fire drill in our hotel can quell the excitement the Texan delegation feels at seeing one of our own take center stage tonight. It's hard not to draw parallels to the 2004 speech from my former State Senator, Barack Obama, and tonight's speech from Mayor Castro. While Castro may not ascend to the White House in a mere four years -- I'd love it if he stayed in Texas, ran for governor, and fixed our broken state first -- this is an exciting and tremendous opportunity for the Mayor of San Antonio. We'll certainly be rooting him on.  

Attorney General Greg Abbott Totally Does NOT Think Planned Parenthood is a Terrorist Organization

by: Katherine Haenschen

Mon May 07, 2012 at 09:15 AM CDT

The quote in question comes from the filing by the AG's office to the 5th Circuit for an emergency stay blocking the injunction granted in Federal Court to stop the state from blocking Planned Parenthood as a qualified provider in the Texas Women's Health program, whether state- or federally funded. (The stay was lifted last Friday, yay!) Here's the section from the AG's office filings that makes the Planned Parenthood / terrorism connection:

"Planned Parenthood does not provide any assurance that the tax subsidies it receives from the Women's Health Program have not been used directly or indirectly to subsidize its advocacy of elective abortion. Nor is it possible for Planned Parenthood to provide this assurance."

"Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies -- even if 'earmarked' for nonabortion activities -- free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions ... (because '[m]oney is fungible,' First Amendment does not prohibit application of federal material-support statute to individuals who give money to 'humanitarian' activities performed by terrorist organizations)."

Got that? Abbott says that giving federal or state money to Planned Parenthood frees up their private money for abortions, just like giving money to terrorist organizations for humanitarian causes frees up their other money for terrorism.

Planned Parenthood responded to the terrorist comparison in a statement to the Huffington Post:

"In a state that leads the nation in the number of uninsured -- where one in four Texas women lack health insurance, and women face the third highest rate of cervical cancer -- I think it is appalling to make such a comparison when Planned Parenthood works every day to keep women healthy," said Melaney Linton, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast.

Sufficient outrage was evidently raised by Abbott's callous remark that the OAG felt it necessary to walk it back. A spokesman for the Texas attorney general's office, Jerry Strickland, said state attorneys were not comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization. They were just citing a Supreme Court case that happened to be about a terrorist organization. Uh, right. It's just coincidence that the state's legal filings happen to draw a direct comparison between PP and terrorist organizations even if you say it doesn't. Gotcha. Strickland said, "Texas did not state -- and does not believe -- that Planned Parenthood is a terrorist organization or comparable to one. Period."

Greg Abbott has made clear that he would rather shut down the entire Women's Health Program and all of the good it does for the women of Texas than allow Planned Parenthood to participate, and continue serving 130,000 women in Texas. He'd rather shut the whole thing down than let women have access to pap smears and breast cancer screenings and annual check-ups.

Ironically, Abbott gets the terrorism-abortion link all wrong. American terrorist organizations actually seek to harm abortion providers. There's a long list of murdered abortion providers, not to mention those who have been on the receiving ends of death threats. Domestic terrorist organizations such as the Army of God and individuals like the man who gunned down George Tiller in church -- they're actual terrorists who carry out brutal violence in the name of stopping abortion. (What ever happened to just praying to end it?) It's actually the anti-abortion zealots that are the terrorists here, Abbott.

Other people might make a comparison between governments that seek to deny women their basic freedoms and totalitarian regimes prone to terrorism, but I'm specifically not making that comparison here. That kind of rhetoric only distracts from the gravity of Abbott's efforts to deny 130,000 women access to the healthcare provider of their choice through his partisan war against Planned Parenthood and women's health in Texas.

I don't know about the rest of you, but backing down from this statement makes me think Abbott's going soft in his personal war on women, am I right? Come on, Greg! If you think Planned Parenthood is a terrorist organization, just say so! After all, you do have your 2014 Republican primary bid for Governor to think about.

In the meantime, Abbott does seem to be losing his legal battles to block Planned Parenthood from the Women's Health Program: on Friday the 5th Circuit lifted their temporary stay and will allow the original injunction -- the one that says that the state can't block PP from the WHP -- to go forward while there is a full trial on the issue.  

Breaking: 5th Circuit Rejects Texas Republicans' Efforts to Block Planned Parenthood From WHP

by: Katherine Haenschen

Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:01 PM CDT

Cecile Richards, President of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund and daughter of the last decent Governor to lead this state, said in a statement:

"This case isn't about Planned Parenthood - it's about the women who rely on Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings, birth control, and well-woman exams.

"Governor Perry has already thrown 160,000 women off of health care for partisan political reasons - now there will be more to come. Mitt Romney would supersize what's happening in Texas and try to block women's access to lifesaving health care nationwide.

"Planned Parenthood's doors are open today and they'll be open tomorrow. We won't let politics interfere with the health care that nearly three million people a year rely on Planned Parenthood for in Texas and around the country."

Preach, Cecile! This means that women can continue coming to Planned Parenthood health centers for WHP health services. Low-income Texas women will again have access to life-saving preventive health care from their trusted provider without interruption as the rest of the trial proceeds.

This story is far from over. Judge Yeakel set a May 18 conference to schedule a trial date to determine whether the injunction should be made permanent, i.e. if the Texas law barring Planned Parenthood from participating in either a federal or state Women's Health Program should be blocked for good.

But still, good news for a change. The State failed to show that they'd suffer irreparable harm from allowing Planned Parenthood to participate in the program, and women can continue receiving healthcare from the provider while this gets sorted out for good.  

Republican Senate Candidates Try To Patronize Women Into Voting For Them

by: Katherine Haenschen

Fri May 04, 2012 at 00:45 PM CDT

As my colleague Ben Sherman reported earlier, the debate was a fairly staid format in which the four leading Republican candidates (David Dewhurst, Ted Cruz, Craig James and Tom Leppert) and the two leading Democratic candidates (Paul Sadler and Sean Hubbard) sat down for a one-on-one with the moderator before engaging in some short Q&A and a bit of brief back-and-forth on the issues of the day. It was during the Q&A that two questions in particular emphasized the degree to which women's reproductive rights and basic access to healthcare have become a political football kicked around like so much special teams practice.

Candidates were asked how they plan to get women to vote for them, and to take a stand on a woman's right to choose. Evidently the Republicans' answer was to patronize women, deny them access to healthcare, and reiterate that women can't make their own medical choices. The responses from the Republicans ranged from laughable to infuriating, as all emphasized their hatred of Planned Parenthood and desire to defund the program that provides services to 40% of women enrolled in Texas's Women's Health Program.

Dewhurst stated that he was asking "all good Republicans to vote for me," which I guess means he's Ok with independent and Democratic women abandoning him over his whacktacular views on women's issues. He emphasized his work to both defund Planned Parenthood and find state money to continue the WHP without the provider (which is in violation of Federal rules regarding exclusion of qualified providers, but NBD, right?). Leppert followed up that he's also against funding Planned Parenthood, and has strong anti-choice viewpoints. He then actually gave a better answer than the rest of his knuckle-dragging Republican brothers when he noted that he was raised by a single mom and that women were concerned about the economy and job opportunities. Then he said something about women being concerned about career politicians? Eh, get your talking points in where you can, I guess. James emphasized his pro-life credentials. I didn't really take many other notes since his voice makes chunks of my brain drip out of my ears. Sorry.

Ted Cruz had perhaps the most laughable and awful answer, as he claimed that "a significant majority" of women are pro-life. Unfortunately for Cruz, the facts say otherwise: a Rasmussen poll (yes, Ras the Republican polling firm) conducted last month found that 51 percent of women identify as pro-choice, and only 40 percent pro-life. The pro-life tally dropped 3 points since Ras's previous January poll. Thanks for telling us what we ladyfolks think, Ted! Unfortunately you're wrong.

On the Democratic side, our candidates did women right on this issue, standing up for our ability to make informed medical decisions and choose our own healthcare decisions. Sean Hubbard, who had a solid debate performance on the whole, said that it was "embarrassing" that we're still discussing whether or not women can make their own healthcare decisions. He noted that his wife had gone to Planned Parenthood earlier in her life not for abortions, but cancer screenings. He said that Planned Parenthood provides "invaluable services to low-income women, women with no health insurances." Sadler also made clear that he supports choice and Planned Parenthood, and disagreed with the state's efforts to defund the entire Women's Health Program just because certain individuals don't like Planned Parenthood. "It's the wrong position that we're taking as a state."

Let's be really clear: Republicans' opposition to Planned Parenthood is out of touch with what Texas voters want. A PPP poll conducted in March showed that 59% of likely Texas voters oppose Governor Perry's efforts to kick the provider out of the Women's Health Program. Planned Parenthood itself enjoys enviably high support in public opinion polls. A Quinnipiac University poll found that 53% of voters nationally oppose cutting off federal government funding to Planned Parenthood. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll ound that 53 percent of Americans found it "mostly or totally unacceptable" to eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood for family planning and preventive health services. Republicans are going against the wishes of voters in Texas and nationally in their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.

The participating candidates -- all male, as the females in both parties are apparently not considered viable candidates worthy of inclusion -- were also asked where they stand on reproductive choice. Unsurprisingly this broke down along party lines as well, with the men emphatically opposing a woman's right to make her own medical decisions, and the Democrats supporting it. Ladies, gird your loins, because one of these people will be voting on Supreme Court nominees. Cruz reiterated that he's strongly pro-life, from "conception to natural death." I'm unsure how that reconciles with the death penalty. Dewhurst said he's always been pro-life, and bragged about passing some of the worst anti-choice legislation of the last decade. Leppert said he was pro-life because of his faith. Perhaps the best answer was from Craig James of all people, who said that he was 100% pro-life, and declared that the morality in our country in decline! People used to open doors for women, and say "sir" and "ma'am!" He didn't mention anything about killing five hookers, instead immediately retiring to his fainting couch to clutch his pearls.

The Democrats, again, were a beacon of sanity in this portion of the debate. Hubbard stated clearly, "I trust women to make the right decisions about their reproductive health. A group of men in Washington, DC or Austin should not make decisions for them." Amen! Sadler noted that he is a person of faith, a Christian, and that he thinks a woman has the right to make this decision for herself, with her own counsel. He made clear that for him, there's room in his faith to disagree on this issue. It was a solid, nuanced answer.  

Women of Texas: the four leading Republican candidates for US Senate are all vehemently opposed to your right to choose, your ability to get healthcare from Planned Parenthood, and your knowledge of whether or not you can make your own reproductive decisions. Good times!

Fed. Appeals Court Reverses Planned Parenthood Decision; Re-Excludes Provider

by: Katherine Haenschen

Tue May 01, 2012 at 10:18 AM CDT

After receiving yesterday's verdict Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a request for an emergency stay to halt the healthcare provider from participating in the program. Unsurprisingly, Judge Smith granted Abbott's stay. From The Statesman:

The stay apparently means that the state does not have to reimburse Planned Parenthood for patients treated as part of the Women's Health Program, which offers contraceptives, health screenings and other care to low-income women.

Under a state rule adopted in February, all program participants had to certify by today that they do not promote abortion or affiliate with organizations that perform or promote abortions. But Yeakel ruled Monday that the rule violated Planned Parenthood's First Amendment rights and placed thousands of women in danger of losing vital health care.

What happens now, and what does this mean?

Planned Parenthood has until 5:00 pm today to respond to the motion, at which point the order will be revisited. This means that while Abbott's requested emergency stay is in effect, Yeakel's original injunction (preventing the state from excluding Planned Parenthood) is not. The State of Texas is free to enforce the affiliate rule, blocking Planned Parenthood from participating in the WHP because they are affiliated with (gasp! horror! clutch pearls! fainting couch!) abortion providers. The 5th Circuit's emergency stay basically overturns Yeakel's original injunction until such time as the 5th Circuit revisits the stay and lifts the stay putting the injunction back into effect -- i.e. upholding Yeakel's original ruling that no public Women's Health Program can exclude a qualified, licensed provider just because Republicans don't like them -- or until there is a full trial before judge Yeakel and he issues a final order on the matter.

What are the legal issues here?

I asked a lawyer to help me out with this one. The State was granted the stay because they claim they will be irreparably harmed if they are forced to include Planned Parenthood as a provider in the program. Lawyers for the State of Texas essentially contend that they cannot violate state law (the affiliate rule, blocking Planned Parenthood and Planned Parenthood alone from participating in any Women's Health Program, whether federally or state funded) in order to continue the program constitutionally. (Various federal rules and interpretations of them make clear that a state cannot deliberately exclude a provider just because they don't like them, as long as they're otherwise qualified, licensed, etc.)

The State of Texas is claiming that they will be forced to shut down the entire Women's Health Program (again, whether funded by Medicaid or state dollars, of which we have none, but that's another problem) unless the injunction is stayed -- i.e. unless they're allowed to keep excluding Planned Parenthood.

This legal reasoning doesn't pass the smell test -- there has been a rule in place since 2003 banning abortion providers from receiving other Family Planning dollars, and the state does not seem to have suffered the grievous injury they allege will happen if they have to reimburse Planned Parenthood for the cancer screenings and contraception they have been providing to women since the inception of the Women's Health Program and in other family planning programs. All of these rules were enacted in 2005 at the start of the WHP, so why is it now, 7 years later, that this is such a friggin' emergency? The state doesn't seem to have suffered irreparable harm over the last 7 years by including Planned Parenthood in the program. So why will the next 6 months cause so much harm?

(Just for fun, picture Sid Miller and Dan Patrick running around, screaming about the social ills of women getting breast exams and pap smears. The horror! The horror! I digress.)

The State claims that Planned Parenthood can simply replace the public funds with private donations and keep providing services to 40% of the women who participate in the WHP. However, the State also claims that because Planned Parenthood didn't post an appeal bond, they can't pay the State back for damages since they don't have any money. What? Planned Parenthood doesn't need state funds to give women cancer screenings because they have a lot of money, but they don't have any money to pay back the state?

What is UP with the 5th Circuit?!

It's no surprise that Republican activist judge Jerry Smith granted Abbott's request. If Smith's name sounds familiar, it's because last month he threw a temper-tantrum after President Obama stated that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court -- a group of appointed judges -- to throw out a law passed by a democratically elected body. POTUS was, of course, referring to the Affordable Care Act.

The 5th Circuit court, which hears federal appeals from parts of Louisana, Mississippi, and Texas, is considered to be one of the most ideologically conservative federal appellate courts in the country. We've previously profiled Chief Judge Edith Jones, an extreme anti-choice zealot who has called for the SCOTUS to review Roe v Wade in the hopes of coming up with a reversed decision. Y'all, this is the court that ordered a rape victim to pay over $40,000 in legal fees to her school district and forced her to cheer for her rapist in a sporting event. Stay classy!

What's Next for the WHP?

Planned Parenthood has until 5 p.m. today to respond. At the heart of the matter are two diametrically opposed laws: the federal law that makes it illegal to exclude a specific qualified provider from a public program because a state doesn't like them, and the law passed by Texas specifically excluding Planned Parenthood from participating in the Women's Health Program because they're affiliated with abortion providers.

Key take-away: Texas Republicans are willing to end the entire Women's Health Program just to prevent Planned Parenthood from participating. How far will they go, and will the courts be able to stop them? That remains to be seen.