Categories
Blog Judicial Missouri

Federal Judge denies preliminary injunction, upholds Missouri’s Pro-Life Regulations

Planned Parenthood Fails at Third Attempt to Eliminate Safety Provisions Designed to Protect Women’s Health, Missouri at an All-Time Low for Number of Abortions

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt

Last week, the U.S. District court for the Western District of Missouri denied a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains (Planned Parenthood) in their lawsuit v. Dr. Randall Williams and the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). As a result of this decision, the Columbia, Missouri, Planned Parenthood facility remains unable to perform abortions due to its inability to adequately care for women should complications arise following an abortion.

“This is a huge victory for protecting women’s health and the right to life,” said Governor Mike Parson. “It’s sad that Planned Parenthood continues to fight against ensuring that a woman’s abortion provider has privileges to a nearby hospital when complications arise. As a former member of the Missouri General Assembly, I was proud to cast votes in support of protecting life and women’s health that have now been upheld in the court of law.”

Gov. Parson added, “As other states in our nation, like New York and Virginia, venture further and further away from the American ideal to uphold the right to life, I’m honored to lead a state with so many people committed to standing up for those without a voice. Thanks to decades of conservative, pro-life leadership, Missouri recently hit an all-time low for the number of abortions.”

In October 2018, the same federal court declined to issue an injunction against state law requiring physicians performing abortions at the Columbia Planned Parenthood facility to have hospital privileges. As the court stated, this is because the Columbia abortion facility was not compliant with state sanitation regulations, after a routine safety inspection discovered apparent black mold and bodily fluid in equipment used to treat patients.

“We appreciate the District Court’s ruling that permits the same standards of care for women that is associated with other invasive surgical procedures,” said Dr. Randall Williams, DHSS Director. As stated in his attestation to the Court, “This is not a burden but a responsibility that physicians dedicated to caring for their patients exercise daily to ensure their patients’ safety by timely providing care at a time patients need it the most, during complications.”

“Missouri Right to Life and pro-life Missourians across the State of Missouri are relieved and thankful at the recent ruling of Judge Wimes,” said Steve Rupp, President of Missouri Right to Life. “The judge found that the requirement in Missouri statute from the passage of SB 5 to require hospital privileges within a 30-mile radius of the abortion facility does not present a ‘substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion.’

“In their filings last month, Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office argued that the complication rate from abortions in Missouri ‘is almost double the national complication rate of 2.1 percent predicted by Plaintiffs.’ Since 2009, over 60 ambulances have been called to the Planned Parenthood in St Louis. Schmitt’s office also argued that the Columbia Planned Parenthood facility has a long history of health and safety violations.

“Thankfully, the number of operating abortion facilities in Missouri will remain at one. Every day abortions are offered, women are put in harm’s way and unborn babies die.

“We thank Attorney General Eric Schmitt for fighting for these critical laws to protect women’s health and well-being.”

The post Federal Judge denies preliminary injunction, upholds Missouri’s Pro-Life Regulations appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
Abortion Blog Judicial Missouri

Obama appointee refuses Planned Parenthood’s third request for injunction against Missouri law requiring admitting privileges

By Dave Andrusko

U.S. District Judge
Brian Wimes

Give Planned Parenthood credit. They keep testing Missouri’s law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and they keep getting shot down.

On Friday Rudi Keller of the Columbia Daily Tribune reported that Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes “refused to issue a preliminary injunction that would have allowed Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions in Columbia.” The ruling “was in response to a third request for an injunction, filed after the clinic was notified in December that it had met every licensing that it had met every licensing requirement except the hospital privileges rule.”

Judge Wimes found, according to Keller, “that attorneys for Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains had not shown that regulations requiring abortion providers have hospital privileges are a ‘substantial obstacle’ in the path of women seeking an abortion.”

As Keller observed, there are various criteria for determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction, including “irreparable harm” and a likelihood of winning a lawsuit. Judge Wimes zeroed in on the latter since that has been “most important factor” for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Planned Parenthood based its lawsuit on a litany of complaints (all vigorously contested by the state of Missouri), including an inability to find hospitals willing to give abortionists admitting privileges, overcrowding, and longer waiting times.

Judge Wimes wasn’t buying any of it:

In particular, Plaintiffs do not present evidence of attempts to find physicians with hospital privileges willing to provide abortion services at the Columbia Facility, or evidence of fewer doctors, longer wait times, and increased crowding at RHS [Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood] in St. Louis. …

“In sum, evidence of increased driving distance relative to the privileges requirement standing alone, for purposes of the motion for preliminary injunction, is not sufficient, even when weighed against the assertions of benefits conferred by the privileges requirement, to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.”

The impact of Judge Wimes’ ruling means that Missouri will have only clinic offering abortion “services”: Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri.

Missouri Attorney General
Eric Schmitt

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt’s office has vigorously defended the law. In court filing last January, Schmitt argued that the complication rate from abortions in Missouri “is almost double the national complication rate of 2.1 percent predicted by Plaintiffs’” and then cited a long history of health and safety violations at the Planned Parenthood clinic at Columbia.

He went to detail what Schmitt described as “the four layers, so to speak, of abortion complications” and how the law did not apply just to one abortion clinic.

Fourth, there are the abortion complications that would have occurred but did not, because since 2007 Missouri has imposed reasonable regulations on abortion facilities designed to promote women’s health and safety. In claiming that the St. Louis facility has a strong safety record (which it does not), Plaintiffs overlook that, for the entire relevant time period, the St. Louis facility complied with both the ASC requirements and the hospital-privileges requirement that have been challenged in this case. Even more complications, and more severe complications, would undoubtedly have occurred if abortion facilities had been radically deregulated as Plaintiffs wish.

This point is especially important because the hospital-privileges requirement and other regulations are not directed only to Plaintiffs, or only to the Columbia facility. Rather, they are statewide requirements that prevent abuses and promote safety not just at Plaintiffs’ facilities, but also for “the shoddiest operators” and “the worst providers” [a quote from a Chicago Tribune story].

The post Obama appointee refuses Planned Parenthood’s third request for injunction against Missouri law requiring admitting privileges appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
Blog Judicial

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Abortion Business in suit against Texas Catholic Bishops Conference

By Indiana Right to Life

WASHINGTON – The United States Supreme Court today rejected an appeal by abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health in its suit against the Texas Catholic Bishops Conference.

In March 2018, Whole Woman’s Health served the Bishops with a subpoena, demanding access to decades’ worth of the Bishops’ communications regarding the topic of abortion, including internal communications regarding moral and theological deliberations among the Bishops.

The Bishops filed an emergency appeal to the Fifth Circuit after a trial judge ordered the Bishops to hand over their internal communications in June 2018. The Fifth Circuit granted the Bishops permanent protection on July 15, 2018, holding that the bishops should be protected from a “‘Hobson’s choice’ of retreating from the public square or defending [their] position.”

Whole Woman’s Health is continuing its effort to open an abortion business in South Bend after losing its 2018 appeal of a licensing denial by the Indiana State Department of Health.

The post Supreme Court Rejects Appeal by Abortion Business in suit against Texas Catholic Bishops Conference appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
Abortion Blog Judicial

A.G. promises to “vigorously defend” Ohio’s ban on dismemberment abortions of living unborn children

Pro-abortionists sue to overturn S.B.145

By Dave Andrusko

Ohio Attorney General David Yost

As anticipated, the Ohio abortion industry, led by Planned Parenthood, filed suit yesterday in U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Western Division, arguing Ohio’s law banning the dismemberment of living unborn children is unconstitutional. The law is scheduled to go into effect next month.

Former Gov. John Kasich signed the Dismemberment Abortion Ban in December 2018. S.B.145 had widespread support in the legislature– in the House (62-27] and the Senate (23-9). Ohio joined nine other states that ban this particularly hideous abortion technique:

1.) Kansas (2015) 2. Oklahoma (2015) 3. West Virginia (2016) 4. Mississippi (2016) 5. Alabama (2016) 6. Louisiana (2016) 7. Arkansas (2017) 8. Texas (2017) 9. Kentucky (2018). For more detail, go the NRLC’s State Legislation page.

“Ohio Right to Life is frustrated but not surprised that Planned Parenthood and other abortion facilities decided to sue on the Dismemberment Abortion Ban,” said Mike Gonidakis, President of Ohio Right to Life. “ This law, should it go into effect, would prohibit the barbaric dismemberment abortion procedure, in which an abortionist first dilates the woman’s cervix, and then uses steel instruments to dismember the living, unborn baby. It’s hard to imagine how Planned Parenthood could be in support of a procedure which allows living unborn babies to be ripped limb from limb.”

Gonidakis added, “This horrendous procedure took place over 3,500 times in Ohio in 2017. At what point will the court reject Planned Parenthood’s frivolous lawsuits?”

Laura Hancock, of Cleveland.com quotes the suit which argues “Should the Act be allowed to take effect, Plaintiffs’ patients’ health and access to abortion care will be threatened, and their constitutional rights will be violated.” The suit continues, “Specifically, a ban on D&E procedures imposes an undue burden on women seeking abortions after approximately 15 weeks of pregnancy.”

Attorney General David Yost said his office will “vigorously defend” the Dismemberment Abortion Ban.

The post A.G. promises to “vigorously defend” Ohio’s ban on dismemberment abortions of living unborn children appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
Abortion Blog Judicial

Missouri Supreme Court unanimously upholds state’s 72-hour waiting period against challenge by member of Satanic Temple

By Dave Andrusko

Last August when we last wrote about the curious case of a member of the Satanic Temple’s challenge to Missouri’s 72- hour waiting period/informed consent law, there was good news and more ambivalent news.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had just ruled that “Mary Doe” could not challenge the law because she was not pregnant at the time of her lawsuit and therefore lacked standing. The judges wrote that “although ‘[p]regnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness,’ the doctrine does not apply here because she did not first establish standing.”

However, Doe had filled in both state and federal court. Still outstanding was a decision by the Missouri Supreme Court. The court had heard oral arguments from Doe who was still pregnant when she sued.

On Wednesday, the seven member Missouri Supreme Court unanimously “agreed that the woman, identified in court documents as Mary Doe, had failed to show that the state’s informed consent law and 72-hour waiting period violated her beliefs as a member of the Satanic Temple,” according to Rachel Lippmann of St. Louis Public Radio.

Missouri’s law has a 72 hour waiting period between the time a woman first meets an abortionist and (if she goes forward) has an abortion. It also requires that a booklet be made available and that the woman be given the opportunity to view an ultrasound and to hear the fetal heartbeat.

The sentence in the booklet which Mary Doe argued “promotes a religious doctrine she does not believe in” says, “(t)he life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”

After her abortion, citing the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Doe and the Satanic Temple filed suit against the State of Missouri at both the federal and state levels in an effort to obtain an exemption. Doe’s complaint asserts “The decision [to abort] is substantially motivated and informed by Mary Doe’s belief in the Tenets [of the Satanic Temple],” adding, “Thus its implementation, i.e., getting an abortion, is the ‘exercise of religion’ protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).”

Not so, said the state’s highest court:

The informed consent law does not adopt any religious tenet, as Ms. Doe claimed. Rather, it requires those seeking an abortion be offered a booklet which, in part, repeats two principles (referred to by Ms. Doe as “tenets”) set out in section 1.205. But Ms. Doe does not challenge section 1.205. Moreover, the informed consent law neither requires a pregnant woman to read the booklet in question nor requires her to have or pay for an ultrasound. It simply provides her with that opportunity. And, while Ms. Doe mentions the 72-hour waiting period, she does not allege how that waiting period conflicts with her religion nor that it was an undue burden, nor did she seek to enjoin its enforcement prior to the expiration of that waiting period. The circuit court did not err in dismissing Ms. Doe’s petition for failure to state a claim.

Hemant Mehta, writing for the Friendly Atheist, channeled the Satanic Temple’s grievances. We will discuss the case further on Friday.

The post Missouri Supreme Court unanimously upholds state’s 72-hour waiting period against challenge by member of Satanic Temple appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
Blog Judicial

Indian man sues parents for giving birth to him

By Michael Cook

There is a well-developed philosophical movement supporting voluntary childlessness. The most extreme exponent may be the South African ethicist David Benatar. His book Better Not to Have Been: the Harm of Coming into Existence created quite a stir in the media.

Now an Indian man is drawing personal and legal consequences from abstract utilitarian theories. According to a report in the BBC, Mumbai businessman Raphael Samuel is suing his parents (both lawyers) for bringing him into the world. He claims it is wrong to have children knowing that they will be exposed to a lifetime of suffering.

Mr Samuel says that humanity should be phased out of existence. “There’s no point to humanity. So many people are suffering. If humanity is extinct, Earth and animals would be happier. They’ll certainly be better off. Also no human will then suffer. Human existence is totally pointless.”

His Facebook page, Nihilanand, features posters that depict him with a huge fake beard, an eye-mask and anti-natalist messages like “Isn’t forcing a child into this world and forcing it to have a career, kidnapping, and slavery?” Or, “Your parents had you instead of a toy or a dog, you owe them nothing, you are their entertainment.”

“I’m not really doing this for publicity,” he told the BBC, “but I do want the idea to go public. This simple idea that it’s okay to not have a child.” Is he unhappy that he was born? “I wish I was not born,” he replied. “But it’s not that I’m unhappy in my life. My life is good, but I’d rather not be here. You know it’s like there’s a nice room, but I don’t want to be in that room,” he explains.

His parents, both lawyers, do not seem too worried about his plans. “That’s fine,” his mother told him, “but don’t expect me to go easy on you. I will destroy you in court.”

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge where this appeared.

The post Indian man sues parents for giving birth to him appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
Blog Judicial

National Right to Life responds to Supreme Court decision to stay Louisiana’s “Unsafe Abortion Protection Act”

WASHINGTON – With a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court granted an emergency request Thursday night to stay a 2014 Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act (Act 620) was previously upheld by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which previously refused to stay implementation of the law.

Pro-abortion attorneys argued that the Louisiana law should be ruled unconstitutional under the precedent of Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The Texas law required abortionists to have admitting privileges and required abortion clinics to meet the same standard as ambulatory surgical centers. However, the Louisiana law did not require clinics to meet the ambulatory center requirements.

In upholding the Louisiana law in a 2-1 decision in September 2018, Fifth Circuit Judges Jerry Smith and Edith Brown Clement ruled that the Louisiana law’s impact is factually different from the Texas law in Hellerstedt and should be ruled constitutional even with the Hellerstedt precedent.

“For a movement that purports to advocate for women’s health, it is bizarre that the abortion industry opposes laws like this,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “What are they so afraid of? What’s wrong with the abortionist that he can’t get admitting privileges at a hospital?”

Tobias added, “There are numerous documented cases of physical complications following an abortion that require women to seek emergency medical treatment. Ensuring that abortionists have admitting privileges is the very least the abortion industry can do to protect women.”

For more information about physical complications from abortion, see National Right to Life’s factsheet here.

For more information about Louisiana Act 620, see Louisiana Right to Life’s factsheet here: prolifelouisiana.org/facts-about-louisianas-admitting-privileges-law.

The post National Right to Life responds to Supreme Court decision to stay Louisiana’s “Unsafe Abortion Protection Act” appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
Admitting privileges Blog Judicial

Supreme Court puts Louisiana admitting privileges law on hold

On a 5-4 vote Court grants procedural stay

Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch Would Have Allowed the Law to Go Into Effect

Louisiana State Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe), who authored the admitting privileges law.

On Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court granted a Shreveport, Louisiana abortion facility’s emergency stay request, further delaying Louisiana’s attempt to enforce Act 620. The 2014 law requires abortion physicians to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Thursday’s order from the high court means the law will be stayed pending full briefing on the question of whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari for a full review of the case.

Attorneys for the Shreveport abortion facility asked the Supreme Court to issue the emergency stay in January, just days before the law was set to take effect. The stay comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the law last fall, then refused the abortion industry’s attempt to have the full court rehear the case. The abortion attorneys have indicated their intention to file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking the Supreme Court’s full review of the law.

“While we are disappointed the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act will not go into law immediately, we do look forward to the potential of the law going into effect later this year after the Court either denies the petition for certiorari, or upon a ruling in Louisiana’s favor after full briefing on the merits,” Benjamin Clapper, Executive Director for Louisiana Right to Life, said. “The abortion industry, over the past four decades, has fought against every common-sense health standard. This is just another example of the extreme lengths the abortion industry pursues to protect abortion-on-demand.”

Dorinda Bordlee of Bioethics Defense Fund and a consulting attorney to Louisiana Right to Life explained, “While the Texas law, like the Louisiana law, required physicians at abortion facilities to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, the Texas law also required abortion facilities to meet strict ambulatory surgical center requirements. Louisiana’s law does not include the ambulatory surgical center requirement, and the facts of Louisiana’s different geography and demographics necessitate a different result.”

Rep. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe), a Louisiana attorney who authored the admitting privileges law, stated: “We encourage the Supreme Court to either deny the abortion industry’s petition, or, if certiorari is granted, that the Court overturn, alter, or clarify the Hellerstedt decision, allowing a state to enforce its duly enacted laws aimed at protecting the health and safety of its citizens. Abortion has known medical risks, and the women of this state who are often coerced into abortion deserve to have the same standard of care required for other surgical procedures.”

The post Supreme Court puts Louisiana admitting privileges law on hold appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
Abortion Blog Judicial research

Was the Supreme Court’s “Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt” decision based on sound research?

By Dave Andrusko

As we reported in three separate posts today, the Supreme Court last night granted a Shreveport, Louisiana abortion facility’s emergency stay request, which means, for now, Louisiana is again thwarted in its attempt to enforce Act 620. The 2014 law does no more than require that abortionists have admitting privileges at a local hospital if/when there are complications.

We focus today on the obvious fact—obvious to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals—that the Louisiana law does differ substantially from Texas’ 2014 law, HB 2, major parts of which the Supreme Court threw out in its 2016 Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and therefore should be upheld. The question remains whether the High Court will go beyond issuing the emergency stay and grant certiorari for a full review of the case. The New York Times says that “seems likely.”

But there is the separate issue of how based in genuine research—as opposed to pro-abortion advocacy dressed up in academese— was the work the majority relied on in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt to come to the conclusion that HB 2 placed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion.

So I’m reposting a long story we first posted June 20, 2016 that addressed that pivotal issue.


If you could work your way through Justice Stephen Breyer’s 40 page majority opinion, obliterating portions of Texas’ HB 2, there are two inter-related conclusions that virtually leap off the page.

First, he comes close to charging Texas with bad faith in passing a law that requires abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. (In a brief concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said what Justice Breyer implied: “It is beyond rational belief that H.B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women.”)

Second, that the “data” Justice Breyer relied so heavily on represented the triumph of “science [or evidence] over ideology.” Much of that data was generated by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TxPEP) and heavily promoted by Daniel Grossman, a rising star in pro-abortion circles.

Questioned by the Associated Press in a story that gushed over TxPEP in general, Grossman in particular, Grossman emailed, “It’s very heartening to see that the Court really cared about the evidence and referenced a lot of high-quality studies in the ruling,” adding modestly, “This was a triumph of evidence over ideology.”

Of course, if the mainstream media weren’t so in the hip pocket of the Abortion Industry and its academic spear carriers, they might actually read those who have actually read what Grossman/TxPEP have written, such as Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, who heads NRLC’s Department of Education and Research.

Earlier this week, Dr. O’Bannon talked at length with Associated Press reporter Paul Weber, pointing out some of the holes, leaps of logic, and unsupported inferences in the pro-abortion research. For his trouble, there was one quote from Dr. O’Bannon.

I asked him what he told Weber and for a summary of the four-part series he wrote about what the oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt told us about the impact of HB 2.

The big-time backers of abortion [specifically the Susan T. Buffett Foundation, named for the wife of billionaire investor Warren Buffett who died in 2004] gave the University of Texas at Austin a lot of money to set up a pro-abortion research center and enlist the services of Dr. Grossman, an abortion “expert” from the University of California at San Francisco, America’s abortion training academy. One of Grossman’s chief tasks was to develop “research” supporting their contention that Texas’ 2013 law, HB 2, closed clinics, thereby placing an “undue burden” on women seeking abortion.

But most reporters and a majority of justices (with the conspicuous exception of Justice Alito) failed to ask some basic questions about the claims TxPEP was peddling. Yes, abortion clinics closed in Texas, but why? Was it because they were old, substandard clinics that were due to close anyway? Was it because of the provisions of HB 2 that were actually under court scrutiny, or because of other elements in the law that were not being challenged (such as the limits on chemical abortions)? Or was it because of other funding policies that Texas passed years earlier, that abortionists were retiring, or even that demand for abortion was dropping in Texas the way it was in most of the rest of the country?

I asked Dr. O’Bannon if it would be fair to say the majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt pretty much took Grossman’s claims at face value, accepting them more or less as gospel.

Yes, but clearly not Justice Alito. He was very pointed and very specific in his questioning at the oral arguments. The attorney representing the abortion “providers” stumbled badly, failing to give substantive answers to his questions. In his dissent, Justice Alito “researched the research.” He properly challenged claims about clinic capacity, travel times, and unproven assertions about the number, timing, and reasons the clinics closed.

Did Dr. O’Bannon not see a role for research in abortion-related cases?

Of course there is a role. Research is fine when it illuminates an issue. But the research the majority relied upon in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was crafted to protect the interests of the abortion industry with scant attention to the legitimate health and safety issues of Texas women, let alone unborn babies.

The post Was the Supreme Court’s “Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt” decision based on sound research? appeared first on NRL News Today.

Categories
Blog Judicial

Louisiana’s “Unsafe Abortion Protection Act” is different than Texas’ HB2 and why that matters

By Dave Andrusko

Whatever the ultimate outcome, last night’s decision by the Supreme Court to grant an emergency stay blocking enforcement of a Louisiana law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital could well mean the justices actually might consider the reasons the federal appeals court upheld Act 620.

The core of the case against the 2014 Louisiana law is found in the 2017 opinion of Judge John W. deGravelles of the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge. He concluded the law was essentially identical to Texas’ HB 2 law which the Supreme Court (then consisting of only eight members due to the death of Justice Scalia) struck down in its 2016 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision.

A divided three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit begged to differ with Judge deGravelle. Pro-abortion litigants asked the full 5th Circuit to hear the case, but were rejected, 9-6. The plaintiffs then asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay.

So how is Act 620—Unsafe Abortion Protection Act—different than Texas’ HB2? Here is the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes’ summary of the panel’s conclusion:

Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for the two-member appeals court majority, said that the court complied with the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health by taking a painstakingly close look at the details.

“Unlike in Texas, the [Louisiana law] does not impose a substantial burden on a large fraction of women,” he concluded.

He said the closing of some clinics in Louisiana, as opposed to Texas, would not dramatically increase driving distances, and that it was easier for doctors in Louisiana to obtain admitting privileges. The “vast majority” of the six doctors who performed abortions in Louisiana “largely sat on their hands” instead of working hard to procure the credential, Smith wrote.

He concluded that “at most, only 30 percent of women” seeking abortions in Louisiana would be affected.

But there’s more to it, of course, as Louisiana Right to Life explained in a fact sheet about the law. Here are just three of the many points made. (All emphases are mine.)

*“Texas’ law that was struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt not only requires physicians at abortion facilities to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, but it also required abortion facilities to meet ambulatory surgical center requirements. Louisiana’s 2014 Act 620 requires physicians at abortion facilities to have admitting privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles of the facility. It does not include the ambulatory surgical center requirement. The different geography and demographic distribution of Louisiana is also very different from Texas, prompting the appellate court to find that the law’s benefits to women’s health are not outweighed by its burdens.” [“The driving distance between abortion facilities with admitting privileges is much different than in Texas, reducing the argument that the law is an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose.”]

*“By law, physicians at an outpatient surgical center in Louisiana has to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. It should be the same with abortion.”

*This is about continuity of care. Because of Act 620 “the same doctor who knows the exact nature of the complication can help the patient in the hospital, improving the continuity of care.” Louisiana law “requires surgeons in outpatient surgical centers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals so that the physician can admit and treat a patient if an emergency arises. Louisiana 2014 Act 620 simply requires the functional equivalent standard for surgical abortion providers. There should be no abortion loopholes when it comes to the standard of care.”

The post Louisiana’s “Unsafe Abortion Protection Act” is different than Texas’ HB2 and why that matters appeared first on NRL News Today.