As Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana who last year called for a "truce on the so-called social issues," approaches his deadline for deciding whether to run for president, state lawmakers have put on his desk a pair of showcase conservative ideas.

In the final days of the state's legislative session, lawmakers approved plans to create the nation's broadest private school voucher system and make Indiana the first state to cut off all government funding for Planned Parenthood.

Daniels has pushed the voucher program, but the Planned Parenthood measure could present a political predicament for him as he nears a decision on whether he will run for president.

The governor has said it's a decision he'll make after lawmakers adjourn for the year, but he told The Indianapolis Star Thursday that he would not have an announcement this weekend even though the legislative session ends Friday. Spokeswoman Jane Jankowski confirmed Daniels' comments to The Associated Press but said he was unavailable for comment.

The Indiana House approved both ideas Wednesday, sending them to Daniels to decide what to do next.

The Planned Parenthood measure is a significant victory for the anti-abortion movement and would cut the $3 million in federal money the state distributes to the Planned Parenthood organization for family planning and health programs. It also ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy unless there is a substantial threat to the woman's life or health and requires women seeking an abortion be told that life begins at conception and that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital.

A federal judge awarded $30 million Monday to more than 200 investors who claim they were defrauded by a pair of Nebraska City brokers.

The decision came in a class-action lawsuit filed in 2007 by former clients of Rebecca Engle and Brian Schuster in U.S. District Court in Omaha. It accuses them of improperly selling risky investments.

The $30 million judgment was against Schuster, a former Nebraska football player, and some of his investment firms. It does not include Engle.

J.L. Spray, an attorney for the investors, said Tuesday that he was pleased with the judge's decision but "it leaves the question of how much of this we'll be able to collect."

Schuster, who has since moved to Vermillion, S.D., is representing himself in court. A number listed for him rang unanswered Tuesday.

Spray said the case against Engle has been put on hold pending her bankruptcy case in Arizona.

Schuster, 37, is scheduled to stand trial next month in state court on eight counts of security fraud. Engle, 57, has pleaded guilty to two counts and awaits sentencing. Several lawsuits and arbitration claims have been filed against them.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the ability of people to combine forces and fight corporations together when they want to dispute contracts for cell phones, cable television and other services, a move consumer advocates called a crushing blow.

In a 5-4 ideological split, the high court's conservatives said businesses can block their customers from using class actions. The court said the federal arbitration law trumps state laws that invalidate contracts banning class actions.

The decision came in a dispute between AT&T Mobility and a California couple who objected to being charged around $30 in sales tax for what they were told was a free cell phone.

Businesses commonly require arbitration clauses in consumer contracts to protect them from facing their customers in court. The Supreme Court's decision means that corporations now won't need to worry about consumers, shareholders or even employees banding together and fighting them using lawsuits or arbitration, consumer groups said.

"Now, whenever you sign a contract to get a cell phone, open a bank account or take a job, you may be giving up your right to hold companies accountable for fraud, discrimination or other illegal practices," said Deepak Gupta, a Public Citizen lawyer who argued the case.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the decision would hamper the rights of consumers to be protected by state laws.

"Class actions are an effective way to ensure consumer protection, but today's opinion by the Roberts court continued to move in a direction that undermines this access to justice for hard-working Americans," Leahy said.