Planned Parenthood of Cent. North Carolina v. Cansler

Decision Date19 August 2011
Docket NumberNo. 1:11CV531.,1:11CV531.
Citation804 F.Supp.2d 482
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
PartiesPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CENTRAL NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff, v. Lanier CANSLER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Catherine E. Lee, M. Jackson Nichols, Allen & Pinnix, PA, Raleigh, NC, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, A. Stephen Hut, Emily A. Bishop, Joshua Marc Salzman, Kimberly A. Parker, Natalie Hirt Adams, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, Helene T. Krasnoff, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Washington, DC, Adam P. Romero, Alan E. Schoenfeld, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Mabel Y. Bullock, North Carolina Attorney General's Office, Raleigh, NC, for Defendant.

ORDER

JAMES A. BEATY, JR., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. # 3] filed by Plaintiff Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina (Plaintiff or “PPCNC”), seeking to enjoin Defendant Lanier Cansler (“Cansler” or Defendant), in his official capacity as the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, from enforcing Section 10.19 of North Carolina Session Law 2011–145. As discussed below, Section 10.19 prohibits the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) from providing state or federal funds to Planned Parenthood, Inc. and its affiliated organizations, including PPCNC. Given the nature of this action, the Court is compelled to note at the outset that this case does not in any way involve funding for abortion services. Instead, as discussed at length below, this action involves legislation that resulted in PPCNC being excluded from receiving otherwise available funding for contraceptive and teen pregnancy prevention programs. As a result, PPCNC contends that it will be forced to cease providing free or low-cost contraceptives for low-income women, lay off staff members who are responsible for teaching the teen pregnancy prevention program, and close a clinic in Durham, North Carolina that currently provides health services and contraceptives for low-income women. This matter came before the Court for a hearing on August 10, 2011. For the reasons set out herein, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction will be granted.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

PPCNC operates three health clinics in North Carolina, located in Durham, Chapel Hill, and Fayetteville. PPCNC provides abortion services at certain of its facilities, but also provides non-abortion-related family planning health services as well. These non-abortion-related services, which are provided at each of the clinics, include cancer screenings (pap smears and breast exams); tests for diabetes, anemia, and high cholesterol; testing and treatment for sexually-transmitted infections; colposcopies; and contraceptives. Since 2001, PPCNC has received grants and contracts, administered through DHHS, for certain of these non-abortion-related health services. Specifically, this funding includes Title X funding, which is federal funding under 42 U.S.C. § 300 for family planning services for low-income women. The Title X funding provides $125,000 annually for PPCNC's Latino Family Planning Outreach Project at the Durham clinic, a project designed to provide family planning services, contraception, and similar health services to low-income, uninsured Latino clients. PPCNC has also received $75,000 annually in funds under the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative, which includes federal block-grant funds as well as state funds earmarked for the State's Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Project. This funding supports PPCNC's adolescent pregnancy prevention program for residents of Cumberland County, Finally, PPCNC also receives $12,000 annually under a state-funded Women's Health Service Fund Grant, which funds PPCNC's program to provide long-acting contraceptives to low-income women in Durham County, Orange County and Cumberland County who are not eligible for Medicaid.

In the present suit, PPCNC contends that as a result of recent legislation, PPCNC will be prohibited from receiving the funds already allocated for these non-abortion-related programs. The contested statutory provision is included in North Carolina Session Law 2011–145, enacted into law on June 15, 2011, over the veto of North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue. The Session Law itself is an appropriations law for fiscal years 20112012 and 20122013. The Session Law included various budget provisions, and also included a separate provision, Section 10.19, that did not reduce funding for any particular program, but instead specifically prohibited only Planned Parenthood, Inc. and its affiliates from receiving any funding for programs administered by DHHS. The entire provision reads as follows:

PROHIBIT USE OF ALL FUNDS FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD ORGANIZATIONS—SECTION 10, 19. For fiscal years 20112012 and 20122013, the Department of Health and Human Services may not provide State funds or other funds administered by the Department for contracts or grants to Planned Parenthood, Inc., and affiliated organizations.

This Section did not cut funding across the board for certain women's health or low-income health services, and does not have any budgetary impact for the state. Moreover, Section 10.19 did not address funding for abortion services, as funding for abortion services is already limited by state and federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 300a–6 (prohibiting the use of Title X funds “in programs where abortion is a method of family planning”); N.C. Sess. Laws 2011–145 § 29.23(a) (prohibiting the use of state funds for most abortions). Instead, Section 10.19 provides that for funding that will otherwise continue for certain non-abortion-related state and federal health programs, Planned Parenthood is specifically prohibited from receiving that funding. Thus, any other entity could still receive funding for these programs, but Planned Parenthood, Inc. and its affiliated organizations cannot, solely because of the operation of Section 10.19.

Plaintiff contends that this section affects PPCNC's Title X funding, the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Grant, and the Women's Health Grant. Plaintiff has presented evidence to establish that prior to the passage of Session Law 2011–145 containing Section 10.19, DHHS had preliminarily approved funding for at least two of these programs to PPCNC. Specifically with respect to Title X funding, Plaintiff has presented evidence to establish that in November 2010, as the result of a competitive contracting process, DHHS informed PPCNC that PPCNC's application was approved for funding in the amount of $125,000, effective July 1, 2011 for fiscal year 20112012. Plaintiff notes that Defendant has access to this federal funding even now, but the $125,000 is not being provided to PPCNC solely due to Section 10.19. Likewise with respect to the Women's Health Grant, Plaintiff has presented evidence to establish that on May 20, 2011, as the result of a competitive contracting process, DHHS provided PPCNC with a preliminary contract for $12,000 for the Women's Health Services Project for the 20112012 year. Plaintiff notes that this funding has now been allocated for its intended purpose and is available to Defendant Cansler, but the $12,000 is not being provided to PPCNC solely due to Section 10.19. In addition, with respect to the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, PPCNC was previously awarded $75,000 per year for the pregnancy prevention program in Cumberland County, and this funding is also now being withheld as a result of Section 10.19.1

Shortly after passage of this legislation, Plaintiff filed the present suit, contending that Section 10.19 is unconstitutional for multiple reasons, including violation of the Supremacy Clause, violation of the First Amendment, violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and violation of the prohibition against Bills of Attainder. Plaintiff also filed the present Motion for Preliminary Injunction, contending that PPCNC would suffer irreparable harm unless enforcement of Section 10.19 is enjoined during the pendency of this suit.

II. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy that may be imposed prior to trial in the discretion of the trial court in order to preserve the status quo during the pendency of the suit and ensure the court's ultimate ability to grant effective relief at the conclusion of the suit. See In re Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation, 333 F.3d 517, 524–25 (4th Cir.2003) (noting that preliminary injunctions are “extraordinary remedies” entered in the discretion of the trial court “to protect the status quo and to prevent irreparable harm during the pendency of a lawsuit ultimately to preserve the court's ability to render a meaningful judgment on the merits”). A movant must establish four elements before a preliminary injunction may issue: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) and injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 374, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008): The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342 (4th Cir.2009), vacated and remanded, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2371, 176 L.Ed.2d 764 (2010), reissued as to Parts I and II, 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir.2010). The Court will therefore consider each of these factors in turn in determining whether a preliminary injunction should issue in the present case.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, Plaintiff must first make a clear showing that it is likely to ultimately succeed on the merits of the case at trial. Real Truth, 575 F.3d at 345–46. In the present case, Plaintiff brings claims...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 30 Junio 2021
    ...Carolina v. Cansler , the district court entered a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of a defunding statute. 804 F. Supp. 2d 482, 483–84 (M.D.N.C. 2011). Cases discussing the defunding controversy are discussed in greater detail below. These indirect regulations seek to prohibit......
  • Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Betlach, CV–12–01533–PHX–NVW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • 19 Octubre 2012
    ...that the present weight of authority allows such a preemption claim under the Spending Clause. Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.C. v. Cansler, 804 F.Supp.2d 482, 488–89 (M.D.N.C.2011); Planned Parenthood of Ind., 794 F.Supp.2d at 911. The Court finds that reasoning persuasive. Further, in the ......
  • Planned Parenthood of Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • 30 Junio 2021
    ...Central North Carolina v. Cansler, the district court entered a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of a defunding statute. 804 F. Supp. 2d 482, 483-84 (M.D.N.C. 2011). Cases discussing the defunding controversy are discussed in greater detail below. These indirect regulations see......
  • Ohio v. Becerra
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • 29 Diciembre 2021
    ...2005) ("Under Title X, then, abortion providers are eligible to receive family planning funding."); Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.C. v. Cansler , 804 F. Supp. 2d 482, 487 (M.D.N.C. 2011) ("[T]itle X does not contain any provision that would prohibit entities that provide abortions from rece......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT