N.C.Cal.: No standing, ripeness in Spending Clause/abortion case

A California federal district court dismissed a suit by the State of California, which challenged a federal spending law prohibiting “discrimination” against medical providers who refuse to perform abortion services. California v. United States, 2008 WL 744840 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2008) (No. 05-00328).

California asserted that the provision conflicted with state law requiring the provision of emergency medical services, and thereby violated the Spending Clause of the Constitution and the constitutional right to seek an abortion. The court held that California lacked standing and that its claim was not ripe, because there was no immediate prospect that California’s law would be hindered.

            The Weldon Amendment, which has for several years been part of federal appropriations bills, bars federal funding to any state and local government that “subjects any…health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” See Consol. Approp. Act 2008, 121 Stat. 1844. California law requires that emergency care for any person in danger of death or serious injury or illness. Cal. H. & S. Code s 1317. California stated that the Weldon Amendment prevents enforcement of the state law in cases where abortion is needed to prevent death or serious harm. In addition to violating the right to an abortion, the State argued that the Amendment violated the Spending Clause by being too vague, by improperly coercing States, and by being unrelated to the purpose of federal spending (see complaint here).

            The court did not reach these claims because it found “no clear indication, either from the express language of the Weldon Amendment or from a federal official or agency, that enforcing Section 1317 or [an analogous federal law] to require medical treatment for emergency medical conditions would be considered ‘discrimination’ under the Weldon Amendment if the required medical treatment was abortion-related services.” The court noted that since California’s Section 1317 was very similar to another federal law, the Weldon Amendment should be read in a way that harmonized the two. Moreover, the court noted that California had previously investigated potential violations of Section 1317 but decided there had been no violations, and had never “refrained from taking action out of concern that it risked losing billions of dollars in federal funding.” Nor was it clear how federal agencies would react to California’s enforcement of Section 1317 in the context of abortion. The court therefore held that California had not established an injury in fact to its sovereign interest in its laws.

            The court also held that even if there is a conflict, California’s “claims will not be ripe until a woman needs but is refused emergency abortion-related services, California then attempts to enforce its law…and the federal government denies or threatens to deny California federal funds as a result.” If California identified a violation of Section 1317, it could always ask federal authorities whether enforcement would violate the Weldon Amendment.

            Although California technically lost, the court’s standing analysis is a win for the State inasmuch as it suggests that Section 1317 is not preempted. While the court did not reach the merits of the Spending Clause claims, it is worth noting that the Spending Clause arguments were similar to those urged by school districts in the ongoing litigation over the No Child Left Behind statute (summary here).