Opinion ID: 1381839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Shipley's Taxpayer Lawsuit

Text: Shipley filed this separate taxpayer's lawsuit in 2002 seeking a declaration that Planned Parenthood is ineligible to receive the family planning funding; he sought an injunction against payment of the funds to Planned Parenthood and, in an amended petition, sought restitution of funds already paid for the services that were rendered at the Planned Parenthood facilities. Planned Parenthood received $168,900.00 in state money under the contracts in fiscal year 2000 and received $499,950.00 in state money under the contracts in fiscal year 2003. In the intervening two years, the circuit court injunctions were in effect and Planned Parenthood did not participate in the program. Shipley's lawsuit contends that Planned Parenthood was ineligible to receive family planning funds because of the restrictions in the appropriations statutes. The relevant restrictions in section 10.705 (1999) and section 10.710 (2002) are as follows: An otherwise qualified organization shall not be disqualified from receipt of these funds because of its affiliation with an organization that provides abortion services, provided that the affiliated organization that provides abortion services is independent as determined by the conditions set forth in this section. To ensure that the state does not lend its imprimatur to abortion services, and to ensure that an organization that provides abortion services does not receive a direct or indirect economic or marketing benefit from these funds, an organization that receives these funds and its independent affiliate that provides abortion services may not share any of the following: (a) The same or similar name; (b) Medical or non-medical facilities, including but not limited to business offices, treatment, consultation, examination, and waiting rooms; (c) Expenses; (d) Employee wages or salaries; or (e) Equipment or supplies, including but not limited to computers, telephone systems, telecommunications equipment and office supplies. An independent affiliate that provides abortion services must be separately incorporated from any organization that receives these funds. [4] Planned Parenthood does not provide abortion services. It is, however, affiliated with two organizations that do provide abortions. The Kansas-Missouri entity is affiliated with the abortion provider Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, Inc.; the St. Louis Planned Parenthood is affiliated with the abortion provider Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region. Although various terms are defined in the appropriations laws, neither provided definitions for the terms share or similar name. In contracting with Planned Parenthood, the department included the language of the appropriations laws and also defined the terms share and similar name. In defining similar name, the department provided that contractors must demonstrate compliance with the statutes through documentation establishing that they do not share [t]he same or similar name under applicable corporation statutes of Missouri or any other state in which the Contractor and affiliate are incorporated with any affiliated abortion provider. The department defined share as services, employees, or equipment that are provided or paid for by the family planning contractor on behalf of the independent affiliate that provides abortion services without payment or financial reimbursement from the independent affiliate who [ sic ] provides abortion services. Planned Parenthood took various measures, including restructuring its organizations, to comply with the appropriations statutes and the contract provisions. Shipley's petition requested that the court declare the following: (1) that the appropriations statutes do not violate the Missouri or United States Constitutions, (2) that the appropriations statutes are unambiguous and that the department's interpretations of share and same or similar name are invalid, and (3) that the Planned Parenthood entities have not qualified and do not currently qualify for receipt of state family planning funds. Shipley sought injunctive relief against Planned Parenthood to prohibit these entities from applying for or obtaining state family planning funds, and against defendant Ronald Cates, acting director of the department, to prohibit him from issuing contracts or requests for proposals contrary to the express language of the appropriations statutes. Shipley filed a first amended petition in 2003 substituting defendant Richard Dunn, director of the department beginning in January 2003, and adding a claim for restitution to the State of Missouri of all family planning funds that have been paid to Planned Parenthood since fiscal year 1999. The circuit court entered judgment in 2005 for Shipley, finding that the director's interpretation of similar and share was invalid and that the relationship between Planned Parenthood and the abortion affiliates rendered Planned Parenthood ineligible to receive funds under the appropriations statutes. The circuit court found that the appropriations restrictions do not violate the Missouri or United States constitutions, enjoined Planned Parenthood from receiving any further funds under the statute, enjoined the director from distributing family planning funds in violation of the appropriations statutes, and ordered Planned Parenthood to repay amounts it was paid under the program plus interest. The court subsequently issued an amended judgment, ordering Planned Parenthood to pay Shipley's attorney's fees and litigation expenses from the returned funds. The department and Planned Parenthood appeal. This Court has jurisdiction because this case involves the validity of Missouri statutes. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 3.