Planned Parenthood of Cent. N.C. v. Cansler

• Decision Date: 28 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. 1:11CV531.,1:11CV531.
• Citation: 877 F.Supp.2d 310
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: PLANNED 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.

877 F.Supp.2d 310

PLANNED 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.

No. 1:11CV531.

United States District Court,

M.D. North Carolina.

June 28, 2012.

Catherine E. Lee, Allen Pinnix & Nichols, P.A., M. Jackson Nichols, Allen & Pinnix, PA, Raleigh, NC, Paul R.Q. Wolfson, 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, Donna D. Smith, Letitia C. Echols, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES A. BEATY, JR., Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction [Doc. # 42] filed by Plaintiff Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina (“Plaintiff” or “PPCNC”), and a Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 46] filed by Defendant Lanier Cansler (“Defendant”), in his official capacity as the Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services. The parties' Motions follow this Court's August 19, 2011, 804 F.Supp.2d 482 (M.D.N.C.2011), Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Preliminary Injunction Order”), wherein the Court enjoined Defendant from further enforcement of or reliance on Section 10.19 of North Carolina Session Law 2011–145 during the pendency of this suit. Section 10.19, discussed in more detail below, 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. As noted in the Preliminary Injunction Order, the Court reiterates at the outset that this case does not in any way involve funding for abortion services, but rather involves state legislation that resulted in PPCNC being expressly excluded from receiving otherwise available funding for contraceptive and teen pregnancy prevention programs, as discussed in more detail below. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction will be granted, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied, and Defendant will be permanently enjoined from any further enforcement of or reliance on Section 10.19 of North Carolina Session Law 2011–145.¹

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ²

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 generally contends that as a result of recent state legislation, PPCNC has been unconstitutionally excluded from receiving state and federal funds for 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 2011–2012 and 2012–2013. 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 2011–2012 and 2012–2013, 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. See42 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 Section 10.19 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 2011–2012. At the preliminary injunction hearing, counsel for Defendant stated that funds, although available to Defendant, were not being provided to PPCNC due to Section 10.19.

Shortly after passage of this legislation, Plaintiff filed the present suit, contending that Section 10.19 is unconstitutional under the United States Constitution for multiple reasons, including violation of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, violation of the prohibition against Bills of Attainder, violation of the Equal Protection Clause, and violation of the Supremacy Clause. Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, contending that PPCNC would suffer irreparable harm unless enforcement of Section 10.19 is enjoined. After a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had shown a likelihood of success as to all of its constitutional claims and a likelihood that Plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.In addition, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had shown that the balance of equities tipped in favor of granting preliminary injunctive relief and that the public interest would be better served by enjoining Section 10.19. Based on these conclusions, the Court enjoined Defendant from further enforcement of or reliance on Section 10.19 during the pendency of this suit.

Following entry of the Preliminary Injunction Order, Defendant executed contracts with PPCNC for the family planning services described herein in the following amounts: $125,000 in Title X funds, $75,000 in Teen Pregnancy Prevention Project funds, and $12,000 in Women's Health Grant funds. The parties then filed the present Motions for Summary Judgment, each seeking judgment as a matter of law on the constitutional claims raised by Plaintiff in this case. In addition, Plaintiff asks the Court to permanently enjoin any further enforcement of or reliance on Section 10.19.

II. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court shall grant summary judgment when there exists no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Zahodnick v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 135 F.3d 911, 913 (4th Cir.1997). When making a summary judgment determination, the court must view the evidence and all justifiable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Zahodnick, 135 F.3d at 913. “ ‘[W]here the facts and the law will reasonably support only one conclusion,’ ” summary judgment is appropriate. PSINet, Inc. v. Chapman, 362 F.3d 227, 233 (4th Cir.2004) (quoting Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 279 (4th Cir.2000)).

As noted above, in its present Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction, Plaintiff contends that Section 10.19 is unconstitutional under the...