Aug

30

Missouri Contracts Anti-Abortion Group to Fight Planned Parenthood

Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, courts, legislation, patriarchy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health  | Posted by Cara |

I have been blogging about the new abortion clinic regulations in Missouri and how Planned Parenthood has been fighting them. The law they are challenging would force Planned Parenthood to undergo medically unnecessary renovations, possibly exceeding $2 million (the previously cited $600,000 was an outdated figure), and almost certainly shutting down two clinics indefinitely. Now, via Ann at Feministing, there is even more bad news.

You see, last week, Missouri Health Director Jane Drummond fired Attorney General Jay Nixon from the case.

Gov. Matt Blunt’s health director is using a private law firm to defend against a challenge to a new Missouri abortion law, claiming Attorney General Jay Nixon cannot be trusted because he backs abortion rights.

. . . Typically, the attorney general’s office defends state agencies in court. But Drummond sent a letter yesterday to Nixon saying she would not be using the attorney general’s office and instead would rely on private attorneys for her defense.

“As you have been an outspoken supporter of abortion on demand and a political ally of Planned Parenthood who has accepted campaign contributions from this abortion provider, I did not believe I could trust you to defend me and my department vigorously,” Drummond wrote.

Drummond added that the new law is “very pro-life while you are radically pro-abortion.”

Sure as hell sounds fishy, right? You better believe it is. Because now reports have revealed that the new attorneys are being provided by Alliance Defense Fund– an apparently “radically anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-separation-of-church-and-state legal powerhouse.”

Four days before PPKM filed its lawsuit, the Missouri Republican Party signaled the coming politicization of the attorney general’s role in the case. Calling for Attorney General Nixon to recuse himself from any prospective suit, the state GOP charged that Blunt’s rival “has shown for more than a decade that he is unwilling to stand up in court on behalf of Missourians against Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion forces.” The statement cited an eight-year-old case involving Nixon’s reluctance to enforce a ban on state funding of Planned Parenthood.

Never mind that the voters of Missouri elected and reelected Nixon, and that Drummond’s boss could be upended by him in the governor’s race next year, should Nixon ride a wave of increasingly Democratic sentiment in the state. Never mind that Drummond was appointed by Blunt, whose campaign — not to mention that of the GOP presidential candidate — could get an assist from social conservatives for working to put Planned Parenthood out of business. For the GOP, it’s Nixon who has politicized the process.

Dale Schowengerdt, one of ADF’s attorneys, said that the organization offered its assistance — free of charge — to the Department of Health because “we believe Planned Parenthood should not be exempt from common-sense regulations that protect the health and safety of women.”

A little eau du Rove, a little essence of Jesus, and voila! The state is now represented by a powerful organization with its own radical agenda. According to its website, “in 1994, God raised up” ADF to counter the American Civil Liberties Union’s and Planned Parenthood’s “distortion” of the Constitution. As a result of ADF’s litigation efforts “the so-called ‘wall of separation’ … is slowly starting to crumble.” ADF has achieved “significant God-given victories … as we strive for the day when all life is once again legally defended, protected, and affirmed.”

Scott Holtse, a spokesperson for Nixon, who, like Drummond, remains a defendant in his official capacity, seemed half exasperated and half bemused by the shenanigans. Normally the attorney general represents state agencies in litigation against them, and Holtse could think of no other example of when a state agency pushed aside the voters’ elected law enforcement official in favor of an outside lawyer — except when the Department of Natural Resources hired a law firm at which Blunt’s sister was an attorney last year.

Oh HELL NO.

Firstly, I would like to point out that Drummond’s comment work directly against her case. The state of Missouri has continually made the argument that this law is not about restricting access to abortion, but about making clinics “safer.” Of course, anyone with half a brain could tell that wasn’t true. But now we’ve got it on record that this is a “pro-life” law. Does that change anything? If not legally, what about politically?

And secondly, to those of you out there with knowledge much more vast than my own, is this even legal? Because it just screams of ethical and legal violations, to me. Firstly, since the Attorney General is elected, can you remove him from a case without a direct conflict of interest? And even if you can, or even if such conflict is found to exist, can the state employ the services of an organization with a well-known agenda like this? What the hell happened to checks and balances? Or democracy? Oh hell, looking at this group, separation of church and state?

If there are any other updates on the matter, particularly if there are any ways to take action, I will be sure to post them. Of course, you can always donate to Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri– and even specify along with your donation that you want the funds to go towards this legal fight.


Bookmark and Share

Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Leave a comment

Note: This post is over 2 years old. You may want to check later in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.