A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit has rejected Oklahoma’s request that millions of dollars in Title X funding be restored to the state after the U.S. Health and Human Services Department (HHS) revoked it in 2023. The ruling upholds a previous lower court decision.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond filed a lawsuit against HHS in November after it refused to give the state Title X funding because the Oklahoma Department of Health would not agree to give patients the number of a national abortion information hotline.
Title X funding is given to states to ensure underprivileged persons can access family planning services. HHS mandated in 2021 that states receiving Title X funding offer “neutral, factual information and nondirective counseling” on all pregnancy options and “a referral regarding all options when requested.”
While Oklahoma followed that requirement initially, it stopped referring patients to abortion-friendly options when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022. After that ruling, Oklahoma became the first state to protect the majority of preborn children from abortion, and abortion was no longer an option in the state unless the mother’s life was at risk. It was shortly after this that HHS said Oklahoma could satisfy the requirement by referring patients to a national hotline on pregnancy options, which it did for a short time. When the state stopped doing so, HHS pulled the funding.
READ: Is Biden’s HHS pushing propaganda about ’emergency abortions’? You be the judge.
According to Courthouse News, “Oklahoma argued requiring it to provide the hotline number violates the Weldon Amendment, a federal law prohibiting HHS funds from going to government agencies that discriminate against health care entities for refusing to provide abortions or abortion referrals. The state argued that its health department should be considered a health care entity and that providing the hotline number would constitute an abortion referral.”
The Tenth Circuit panel, however, determined in a 2-1 ruling, “The call-in number offered an opportunity to supply neutral information regarding an abortion.” U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Bacharach, an Obama appointee, wrote for the majority, “Oklahoma rejected the option of a national call-in number, but didn’t question the neutrality of the information provided.” Senior U.S. Circuit Judge David Ebel, a Reagan appointee, joined in Bacharach’s majority opinion.
The dissenting opinion came from U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Federico, a Biden appointee, who wrote that requiring Oklahoma to provide the hotline number to patients is the equivalent of forcing it to give abortion referrals. He wrote, “If the patient desires information about options that are not abortion, there would be no need for a referral to a national hotline. On the other hand, if a patient requests a referral, an Oklahoma provider would reasonably assume it is solely to explore the option of pregnancy termination, which OSDH concluded would run afoul of Oklahoma law and policy.”
