Filed Date: June 1, 1998
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Two medical doctors and Planned Parenthood of Alaska filed this lawsuit in the Superior Court, Third Judicial District of Alaska in June 1998. Represented by the ACLU of Alaska, ACLU Foundation, and Reproductive Freedom Project, the plaintiffs sued the Alaska Department of Health and Social Service (DHSS) and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs challenged 7 AAC 43.140, a regulation that, beginning July 1, 1998, swapped out Alaska's older General Relief Medical Program for a new Chronic and Acute Medical Assistance Program. The new program would have denied Medicaid funding for abortions to recipients unless the recipient was at risk of death or dying or had been raped or a victim of incest. The plaintiffs argued the regulation interfered with their fundamental right to privacy under the Alaska Constitution and constituted sex discrimination in violation of the state's equal protection clause.
On March 16, 1999, Judge Sen K. Tan of the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, reasoning that the State had not articulated a compelling state interest in interfering with Medicaid recipients’ state constitutional right to privacy. He did not reach the equal protection question but did also say that judicial judgment on the matter was not blocked by the separation of powers doctrine. 1999 WL 34793393. On April 2, 1999, Judge Tan issued a final judgment, permanently enjoining Alaska from enforcing the portion of 7 AAC 43.140 that would have denied funding for medically necessary and/or medically therapeutic abortions. He also granted the plaintiffs their attorneys fees and costs. 1999 WL 33636723.
On November 24, 1999, the state appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Alaska. On July 27, 2001, Chief Justice Dana Fabe, writing for the Court, held that the regulation violated Alaska's constitutional guarantee of equal protection. She explained that the regulation failed strict scrutiny by treating all other medically necessary care differently than it treated medically necessary abortion. Like the lower court, the Supreme Court also held that the separation of powers doctrine did not prevent the court from ordering the state to provide equal funding for abortions, when medically necessary. 28 P.3d 904. Therefore, the permanent injunction remained in place, and the challenged statute did not take effect.
Summary Authors
Sophia Bucci (5/3/2023)
Planned Parenthood of Alaska v. State, Alaska state trial court (1997)
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest v. Streur, Alaska state trial court (2014)
Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 1:28 p.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Alaska
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Planned Parenthood Medicaid Litigation
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 1, 1998
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Two medical doctors and Planned Parenthood of Alaska
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Reproductive rights:
Reproductive health care (including birth control, abortion, and others)
General:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Discrimination-area:
Affected Sex or Gender:
Medical/Mental Health:
Benefit Source: