Pages

Sunday, June 3, 2018

The Abortion Pill Has Killed 22 Women, One State is Fighting Planned Parenthood to Protect Others


By Elizabeth Slattery
Life News


This week, the Supreme Court declined to take up Planned Parenthood’s challenge to a 2015 Arkansas law intended to protect women experiencing complications after a medication abortion.

The commonsense reform would require clinics that provide abortion-inducing drugs to have an arrangement with a doctor at a nearby hospital. In the case of an emergency, that doctor could then treat the woman at the hospital—something the Arkansas Legislature determined is necessary in light of the myriad complications that can result from a drug-induced abortion.

In a 2017 report, the Food and Drug Administration indicated there have been 22 reported deaths caused by medication abortions since the drug was approved in 2000.

Before Arkansas’ law could go into effect, Planned Parenthood got a district judge in Little Rock to stay its implementation. The abortion giant argued that it has been unable to find a doctor with admitting privileges who is willing to enter into an agreement with its two clinics in Arkansas. Since these locations do not provide surgical abortions, Planned Parenthood says it may have to shut down its operations in Arkansas, leaving only one remaining abortion clinic in the state.

Under Supreme Court precedent, states may enact abortion regulations so long as they do not have the purpose or effect of imposing an undue burden on women seeking an abortion before viability. Planned Parenthood brought a facial challenge, claiming the law is unconstitutional in every application, rather than as applied to its locations in Arkansas.

The Supreme Court has explained that the standard for a facial challenge to an abortion regulation is whether “in a large fraction of the cases in which [the law] is relevant, it will operate as a substantial obstacle … ”

Last July, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court. Writing for the court, Judge Raymond Gruender (who is on President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court short list) explained that the district court needed to conduct more detailed fact-finding in order to halt the law.

The district court had determined that the law was an “undue burden” by focusing on women from Fayetteville who would be required to travel 380 miles to the remaining clinic in Little Rock. 


The appeals court panel estimated that, based on the record in the case, fewer than 6 percent of women seeking medication abortions would be negatively affected by the new law, expressing skepticism about whether that would qualify as a “large fraction.” But the panel gave the district court a second chance at making the necessary findings to support its injunction.

Instead of going back to the district court, however, Planned Parenthood asked the Supreme Court to intervene, seeking a summary reversal of the 8th Circuit’s ruling. Planned Parenthood claims that this case is nearly identical to a 2016 decision striking down Texas’ admitting privileges law, so the court could avoid rehashing the same arguments and simply reverse the lower court.

But the Supreme Court, unsurprisingly, declined to do that.



No comments:

Post a Comment