U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt said in her ruling that the criteria for issuing a temporary restraining order have not been met. The judge said that the ACLU provided information showing the legislation would have a gradual affect on Planned Parenthood as opposed to the immediate harm required for a restraining order.In the meantime, please donate to Planned Parenthood of Indiana and/or the ACLU of Indiana, if you can.
"This ruling should not be viewed as a signal on a future ruling," said Walton Pratt, indicating her decision should not be considered in future legal battles of the legislation.
The two sides will meet in court again on June 6 for an injunction hearing.
I was just watching local (Chicago) news coverage of the ruling and the coverage is, as expected, totally abysmal. It's being (mis)represented as a principled stand against allowing federal funds to pay for abortions, even though Planned Parenthood is already restricted from using those funds to pay for abortions by the Hyde Amendment.
This is going to be a long, ugly, and upsetting fight.
The women (and men) of Indiana have been told by their government that their lives and health and bodies and rights and agency don't matter, and other states are looking to follow suit. All we can do is raise our voices and say, over and over and over again, that we do matter, until we are heard.
[H/t to @scatx.]
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus