The Abortion Docket

Groups on both sides are coordinating their Supreme Court strategies.

, The National Law Journal

   |2 Comments

The Jackson Women’s Health Organization is litigating a Mississippi law requiring clinic doctors to have hospital admitting privileges.
The Jackson Women's Health Organization is litigating a Mississippi law requiring clinic doctors to have hospital admitting privileges.

In the past two years, anti-abortion groups have seeded state laws with abortion restrictions. Challengers to court rulings for and against those laws now are knocking on the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices on Nov. 4 dismissed Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, Oklahoma's attempt to resurrect its limits on medical abortions. However, litigators on opposite sides of the abortion controversy agree the Cline case is unlikely to be the last time the high court confronts that issue.

On the same day as the dismissal of Oklahoma's petition, an emergency application was filed with Justice Antonin Scalia in Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Abbott, a case challenging that state's law requiring abortion clinic physicians to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.

As early as this week, the high court may say whether it will hear another Oklahoma abortion case, Pruitt v. Nova Health Systems, the state's defense of the Oklahoma Ultrasound Act, which also was struck down by that state's highest court.

Before the year ends, the justices may take their first look at Horne v. Isaacson, a petition by Arizona challenging the invalidation of its law banning abortions after 20 weeks.

ANOTHER FRONT

And, although cast as a religion issue, lawsuits by for-profit business owners objecting to health insurance coverage of contraception are seen as another front in the abortion wars. The justices have three petitions on that issue and are highly likely to take one this term.

Litigation at the Supreme Court and in the lower state and federal courts "seems to be picking up," said Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. And that is demanding a high level of coordination of legal resources on both sides.

Three issues dominate most of the litigation: requirements for hospital admitting privileges, 20-week abortion bans and medication abortions. And two of the three — admitting privileges and 20-week bans — are alive at the Supreme Court.

The three main defenders of abortion rights are the ACLU, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Center for Reproduc­tive Rights. Most recently lawyers from all three organizations formed a team to challenge Texas' recent anti-abortion law in a suit that moved from federal trial to appeal to emergency application in the Supreme Court in just one month.

Besides its admitting-privilege requirement, the Texas law limits medical abortions and bans abortions after 20 weeks. A federal district judge blocked the admitting-privileges requirement, finding it did not improve patient outcomes and was a substantial obstacle to women obtaining abortions. However, the judge upheld the medical abortion limits "except when a physician finds such an abortion necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother." The 20-week ban was not challenged.

The state immediately appealed to lift the injunction. Three days after the trial judge's ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit lifted the injunction. Four days later, opponents filed an emergency application to reinstate the injunction.

What's being said

  • rm

    I agree with jfb. The author is extremely biased. She makes very little reference to the merits of the prolife position on each of the pending cases, and fails to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of abortions in the U.S. are not "medical necessities to protect the health of the mother." Most are used as an extreme and expensive method of birth control, plain and simple. Roe v. Wade was based on constitutional shakey grounds and the faulty logic of that decision has unfortunately been perpetuated by the ACLU and pro-abortion groups since then.

  • jfb

    Sounds like the author is biased in that she refers to an Anti abortion group and not a pro life group. If that's the case then pro choice should be called pro abortion, but that's probably not the view they want.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article# 1202627059564

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.