Oldgamer
Diamond Member
It looks like they may not be able to shut down all the clinics with their "trap laws" after all. Abortion rights advocates are fighting back. They won a small victory here in Mississippi. For now they can't touch this clinic.
-----------------------------------------
Link to news article
NEW ORLEANS A federal appeals panel on Tuesday blocked a Mississippi law that would have shut the sole abortion clinic in the state by requiring its doctors to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals, something they had been unable to do.
By a 2-to-1 vote, the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that by imposing a law that would effectively end abortion in the state, Mississippi would illegally shift its constitutional obligations to neighboring states. The ruling is the latest at a time when states, particularly in the South, are increasingly setting new restrictions that supporters say address safety issues and that critics say are intended to shut clinics.
A state cannot lean on its sovereign neighbors to provide protection of its citizens federal constitutional rights, Judge E. Grady Jolly wrote.
Pre-viability, a woman has the constitutional right to end her pregnancy by abortion, he continued. This law effectively extinguishes that right within Mississippis borders.
Mississippi officials had argued that women seeking abortions could always drive to neighboring states, such as Louisiana or Tennessee, to obtain the procedure, an argument the panel rejected.
The decision did not overturn the Mississippi law or explore whether the admitting-privilege requirement was justified on safety grounds. Rather, the panel said, the law could not be used to close the sole clinic in the state. The opinion preserved an existing stay while the substantive issues were considered further by a Federal District Court. But it set a clear principle of state responsibility that the lower court must apply to this case.
Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, said that the principle of state responsibility enunciated by the circuit court is deeply established and fully entrenched.
It goes not only to the issue of reproductive freedom but to the very character of the federal union, he said.
Mississippi officials did not say whether the state would appeal.
We are reviewing the ruling and considering our options, said Jan Schaefer, a spokeswoman for Jim Hood, Mississippis attorney general.
State Representative Sam C. Mims, who was the chief sponsor of the law, expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying that the decision reflected a misinterpretation of its purpose.
Abortion is still legal throughout the nation and, of course, still legal in Mississippi, he said. This legislation did not deal with that; it only dealt with the regulation of abortion clinics.
Supporters of abortion rights were pleased but wary.
The fact that the Mississippi clinic can stay open is good news, but there are a lot of other cases pending in federal courts, and its impossible to know if those laws will be upheld or struck down, said Elizabeth Nash, who analyzes state laws for the Guttmacher Institute, a private research group that supports abortion rights.
Similar laws have been temporarily blocked by federal courts in Alabama, Kansas and Wisconsin while they have taken effect in Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.
In March, a panel from the same appeals court, composed of different judges, upheld a Texas law requiring admitting privileges, ruling that the closing of some but not all clinics within a state did not present an undue burden to women seeking abortion. About one-third of the abortion clinics in Texas have shut in the last year because of the requirement, leaving 22 open and forcing women in some parts of the state to drive more than 100 miles to obtain an abortion.
On Monday, two affected clinics in Texas are mounting a new legal challenge and clinic operators will also ask a Federal District Court to block enforcement of a more drastic requirement scheduled to take effect on Sept. 1 that abortion clinics meet the building standards of ambulatory surgery centers. That rule could reduce the number of centers operating in the state to fewer than 10.
While the Texas and Mississippi laws were nearly identical, the judges found that the effect in Mississippi, with a single clinic, made the law there, passed by a large and bipartisan majority in 2012, constitutionally distinct from the one in Texas.
Nearly everyone involved with the law in Mississippi acknowledged from the outset that it would shutter the Jackson Womens Health Organization, which is north of downtown Jackson. The clinics challenge to the law was argued by the Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York group.
Politicians at the time of the laws passage, including the governor, welcomed the closing as a likely outcome. The two physicians who perform nearly all abortions at the clinic, neither of whom live full-time in Jackson, tried and failed to obtain admitting privileges at all seven hospitals in the area.
When they appeared before the appeals panel in April, lawyers representing the state did not dispute that the law would force the clinics closing, instead echoing arguments made about the Texas law: that it was not an undue burden for women to have to drive a longer distance.
Mississippi is surrounded by major metropolitan areas where abortion clinics are available, said Paul E. Barnes of the Mississippi attorney generals office. The judges at the time pointed out that such options might narrow considerably with the passage of similar laws in Louisiana and Alabama, a point raised again in a footnote to Tuesdays opinion.
In a dissent, Judge Emilio M. Garza agreed with Mississippis arguments, saying that the law was a reasonable effort to regulate and add safeguards to abortions. Disputing the central premise of the opinion, he wrote that no state is obligated to provide or guarantee the provision of abortion services within its borders.
Major medical associations including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have said that requiring clinic doctors to have admitting privileges has no effect on medical safety. In an emergency, patients would be sent to local emergency rooms and be treated by specialists in any case.
Many hospitals provide admitting privileges only to doctors who admit a minimum number of patients each year a threshold many abortion providers cannot meet because serious medical crises are rare and, in the case of the Jackson clinic, because the doctors visit from elsewhere.
Other hospitals, especially in conservative and rural areas, have refused to grant privileges to abortion clinic doctors in order to avoid controversy.
-----------------------------------------
Link to news article
NEW ORLEANS A federal appeals panel on Tuesday blocked a Mississippi law that would have shut the sole abortion clinic in the state by requiring its doctors to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals, something they had been unable to do.
By a 2-to-1 vote, the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that by imposing a law that would effectively end abortion in the state, Mississippi would illegally shift its constitutional obligations to neighboring states. The ruling is the latest at a time when states, particularly in the South, are increasingly setting new restrictions that supporters say address safety issues and that critics say are intended to shut clinics.
A state cannot lean on its sovereign neighbors to provide protection of its citizens federal constitutional rights, Judge E. Grady Jolly wrote.
Pre-viability, a woman has the constitutional right to end her pregnancy by abortion, he continued. This law effectively extinguishes that right within Mississippis borders.
Mississippi officials had argued that women seeking abortions could always drive to neighboring states, such as Louisiana or Tennessee, to obtain the procedure, an argument the panel rejected.
The decision did not overturn the Mississippi law or explore whether the admitting-privilege requirement was justified on safety grounds. Rather, the panel said, the law could not be used to close the sole clinic in the state. The opinion preserved an existing stay while the substantive issues were considered further by a Federal District Court. But it set a clear principle of state responsibility that the lower court must apply to this case.
Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard, said that the principle of state responsibility enunciated by the circuit court is deeply established and fully entrenched.
It goes not only to the issue of reproductive freedom but to the very character of the federal union, he said.
Mississippi officials did not say whether the state would appeal.
We are reviewing the ruling and considering our options, said Jan Schaefer, a spokeswoman for Jim Hood, Mississippis attorney general.
State Representative Sam C. Mims, who was the chief sponsor of the law, expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying that the decision reflected a misinterpretation of its purpose.
Abortion is still legal throughout the nation and, of course, still legal in Mississippi, he said. This legislation did not deal with that; it only dealt with the regulation of abortion clinics.
Supporters of abortion rights were pleased but wary.
The fact that the Mississippi clinic can stay open is good news, but there are a lot of other cases pending in federal courts, and its impossible to know if those laws will be upheld or struck down, said Elizabeth Nash, who analyzes state laws for the Guttmacher Institute, a private research group that supports abortion rights.
Similar laws have been temporarily blocked by federal courts in Alabama, Kansas and Wisconsin while they have taken effect in Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.
In March, a panel from the same appeals court, composed of different judges, upheld a Texas law requiring admitting privileges, ruling that the closing of some but not all clinics within a state did not present an undue burden to women seeking abortion. About one-third of the abortion clinics in Texas have shut in the last year because of the requirement, leaving 22 open and forcing women in some parts of the state to drive more than 100 miles to obtain an abortion.
On Monday, two affected clinics in Texas are mounting a new legal challenge and clinic operators will also ask a Federal District Court to block enforcement of a more drastic requirement scheduled to take effect on Sept. 1 that abortion clinics meet the building standards of ambulatory surgery centers. That rule could reduce the number of centers operating in the state to fewer than 10.
While the Texas and Mississippi laws were nearly identical, the judges found that the effect in Mississippi, with a single clinic, made the law there, passed by a large and bipartisan majority in 2012, constitutionally distinct from the one in Texas.
Nearly everyone involved with the law in Mississippi acknowledged from the outset that it would shutter the Jackson Womens Health Organization, which is north of downtown Jackson. The clinics challenge to the law was argued by the Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York group.
Politicians at the time of the laws passage, including the governor, welcomed the closing as a likely outcome. The two physicians who perform nearly all abortions at the clinic, neither of whom live full-time in Jackson, tried and failed to obtain admitting privileges at all seven hospitals in the area.
When they appeared before the appeals panel in April, lawyers representing the state did not dispute that the law would force the clinics closing, instead echoing arguments made about the Texas law: that it was not an undue burden for women to have to drive a longer distance.
Mississippi is surrounded by major metropolitan areas where abortion clinics are available, said Paul E. Barnes of the Mississippi attorney generals office. The judges at the time pointed out that such options might narrow considerably with the passage of similar laws in Louisiana and Alabama, a point raised again in a footnote to Tuesdays opinion.
In a dissent, Judge Emilio M. Garza agreed with Mississippis arguments, saying that the law was a reasonable effort to regulate and add safeguards to abortions. Disputing the central premise of the opinion, he wrote that no state is obligated to provide or guarantee the provision of abortion services within its borders.
Major medical associations including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have said that requiring clinic doctors to have admitting privileges has no effect on medical safety. In an emergency, patients would be sent to local emergency rooms and be treated by specialists in any case.
Many hospitals provide admitting privileges only to doctors who admit a minimum number of patients each year a threshold many abortion providers cannot meet because serious medical crises are rare and, in the case of the Jackson clinic, because the doctors visit from elsewhere.
Other hospitals, especially in conservative and rural areas, have refused to grant privileges to abortion clinic doctors in order to avoid controversy.
Last edited:
