Court Opinion

ID: 8412377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-02 19:36:23.895316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:47:57.096230
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join Part IIA of the majority opinion in full. I also join Part UBI and IIB2 but do not join Part IIB3 or the reversal of the judgment requiring modification of the preliminary injunction insofar as it prohibits state restrictions on § 247c(e) block-grant funding. I believe the issue of unconstitutional conditions should be remanded to the district court for development of the record with respect to any possible imposition of a burden on access *989to abortions. In arguing the matter below, Planned Parenthood was required to defend both its Medicaid and block-grant funding. Unsurprisingly, Planned Parenthood focused on Medicaid and aimed its brief primarily at the appropriate interpretation of § 1396a(a)(23). The § 247c(c) block-grant funding received comparatively little attention from both parties as well as numerous amici in this case. I believe it is premature for this court to address this issue on the present record. Plaintiffs may not have fully addressed this issue below, but the fundamental constitutional nature of this issue should preclude its disposition on less than an adequate record.