California Ex Rel. Lockyer v. United States

Good Law
450 F.3d 436·2006 WL 1599034
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 9, 200605-17292, 05-17312California3,369 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kozinski, J.

We consider whether health care providers are entitled to intervene in a case challenging the constitutionality of a federal appropriations rider enacted to protect their interests.

Facts

California, like a number of other states, has a statute that compels emergency health care providers to deliver medical services “for any condition in which the person [seeking such services] is in danger of loss of life, or serious injury or illness.” Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1317 (a). The statute makes no exception for abortion services and can therefore be understood to mandate such services when needed to preserve the life or health of the patient.

In 2004, Congress attached a rider to an appropriations bill, in an effort to dissuade states from forcing health care providers to offer abortion services. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809 (2005). The rider, dubbed the Weldon Amendment after its sponsor, Congressman (and Doctor) Dave Weldon, prevents federal, state and local governments from receiving certain federal funds if they discriminate against health care providers that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.