News Abortion

Divided Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Ohio Law Restricting RU-486

Jessica Mason Pieklo

On Tuesday a federal appeallate court ruled Ohio's regulation of RU-486 was constitutional, setting the case up for Supreme Court review.

On Tuesday a divided Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati upheld the state’s law restricting the use of RU-486.

HB 126, first passed in 2004, regulates and restricts the use of mifepristone by requiring that it can only be administered in the same exact dosage as approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000 and restricts the use of mifepristone to the first seven weeks of pregnancy. After the seventh week, use and administration of the drug is criminalized. It’s a specific and intentional prohibition of the off-label use of the drug, and a restriction challengers contend is unconstitutionally vague, intrusive, and imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose early, safe abortion.

U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott had previously ruled the restrictions were reasonable and this ruling from the Sixth Circuit affirms that ruling.

The Sixth Circuit decision settles all but one of the legal challenges to the bill. Judge Dlott must still decide whether the law is constitutional without an exception that would loosen restrictions on off-label use of the pill for health and safety reasons.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Judge Karen Nelson Moore was the lone dissent from the Sixth Circuit. Because nearly 20 percent of abortions performed in Ohio are non-surgical, banning the use of the drug in the manner of HB 126 would unduly burden women who prefer medical abortions to surgical ones.

“Surgical abortions, as the name suggests, require surgery, a physically invasive procedure,” Moore wrote. “We simply should not conclude as a matter of law that every woman who would prefer a medical abortion would be equally likely to obtain a surgical abortion.”

The two judges in the majority, judges David McKeague and John Rogers disagreed. “The Supreme Court has not articulated any rule that would suggest that the right to choose abortion encompasses the right to choose a particular abortion method,” McKeague wrote.

The ruling could be appealed to the Supreme Court which would place the issue of whether a right to chose abortion includes the right to chose a particular abortion method before the Roberts Court.

News Law and Policy

Fifth Circuit Rules Louisiana Clinic Closure Law Can Take Effect, Raising Stakes in Supreme Court Fight

Jessica Mason Pieklo

A ruling Wednesday that a Louisiana provision requiring abortion providers to obtain hospital admitting privileges can take effect comes just one week before the U.S. Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of a similar Texas provision.

Just one week before advocates will argue before the U.S. Supreme Court over a Texas law designed to close abortion clinics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Wednesday ruled a copycat Louisiana law can take effect.

The result, advocates charge, will close all but one abortion clinic in the state.

At issue is Act 620, a Louisiana law signed by former Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) in June 2014 that mandates doctors who provide abortion care must obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital. The law was scheduled to go into effect on September 1, 2014, which meant doctors had 81 days to obtain the privileges.

Attorneys from the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) sued in August 2014, arguing the act was impossible to comply with and unduly burdened abortion rights. A federal court issued a temporary restraining order that month, allowing the provision to take effect but blocking enforcement of the law while doctors tried to meet the requirement.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

The federal court in June 2015 held a six-day trial and in January of this year ruled the law should be blocked. Louisiana immediately appealed, asking the court to stay its decision blocking the law while that appeal proceeded. The court denied the request. Louisiana appealed that denial to the Fifth Circuit, which agreed Wednesday to overturn the lower court and allow the admitting privileges law to go into effect.

Officials from CRR and Louisiana reproductive health care providers impacted said they would seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court so that clinics could reopen.

“Today’s ruling thrusts Louisiana into a reproductive health care crisis, where women will face limited safe and legal options when they’ve made the decision to end a pregnancy,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of CRR, said in a statement.

“In exactly one week, we will be arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court to put an end to the kinds of unjust and unconstitutional attacks on women’s rights and health that we are seeing play out right now in Louisiana,” she noted.

Advocates said if the Supreme Court fails to block the Fifth Circuit’s decision, the closest abortion provider for many women in Louisiana will be located in Jackson, Mississippi. That clinic remains open only due to a court order, and attorneys from Mississippi have also asked the Roberts Court to step in.

Supreme Court arguments in the Texas case will take place on March 2.

Analysis Law and Policy

Fifth Circuit Upholds More HB 2 Provisions, Dares the Supreme Court to Step In

Jessica Mason Pieklo

The decision to uphold the ambulatory surgical center provisions of HB 2 seems designed to bait the Roberts Court to take on another major abortion case.

Read more of our articles on Texas’ omnibus anti-abortion law here.

If there was any lingering doubt that the conservative judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit are downright daring the Supreme Court to take another major abortion case, one read of Tuesday’s decision allowing even more terrible provisions of HB 2 to take effect should put such hesitation to rest.

The Roberts Court is already considering taking up a different abortion rights case from the Fifth Circuit that arguably conflicts with this week’s opinion. I’ll get to that conflict in a minute. But first, I think the question all reproductive rights advocates need to ask is whether the Fifth Circuit’s decision Tuesday muddied the waters on undue burden analysis intentionally in the hopes that the Supreme Court will step in, making the landscape of abortion rights access even more treacherous to patients than it currently is.

My vote is: Yes, it did.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Texas and HB 2 have provided the staging ground for one of the religious right’s most aggressive attacks on legal abortion—in large part because of a belief, proven true with decision after decision, that there was no restriction on abortion rights the conservative Fifth Circuit wouldn’t bless. Mandatory ultrasounds? No problem. Admitting privileges requirements? You bet.

The result has been devastating for the people of Texas, with a flood of clinic closures across the state and anti-choice lawmakers lining back up to pass even more restrictions to squeeze access even tighter. With each Texas decision putting more facilities in danger, the Fifth Circuit danced around the question of just how far was too far for a patient to travel to access abortion care. Was 150 miles too far? What if the roads were flat and lightly traveled, the Fifth Circuit justices asked. Would that make a difference?

No it would not, decided the Fifth Circuit.

Then Mississippi happened. While Texas anti-choice lawmakers were jamming HB 2 through in special session, Mississippi lawmakers had already passed their version of a targeted regulation of abortion provider (TRAP) law, with the express purpose of closing down clinics. But unlike in Texas, Mississippi’s TRAP law threatened to leave the state without a single open abortion clinic. The Fifth Circuit ruled in Jackson v. Currier that Mississippi could not target the state’s only clinic for closure and that it would be an undue burden to force patients to have to cross state lines in order to access care.

This is the Mississippi abortion rights case the Roberts Court is currently weighing stepping into.

But on Tuesday the Fifth Circuit backtracked on Currier, or at least it appeared to. This may be enough to compel the Roberts Court to get involved. When reversing the lower court’s ruling that prevented HB 2’s ambulatory surgical clinic (ASC) provisions from applying to the only abortion clinic in El Paso, the Fifth Circuit ruled it would be perfectly acceptable to make patients travel to New Mexico to get care. Unlike Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit ruled, Texas here “has not completely shunted its responsibility onto other states,” the court wrote. “H.B. 2 does not result in the closure of all abortion providers in the state: at least eight ASCs will continue to provide abortions in Texas.”

Of course, none of the clinics that can comply with the ASC requirements—and, therefore, stay open—are located along Texas’ southern border. But because the City of El Paso borders Santa Theresa, New Mexico, which has an abortion provider, that is good enough as far as the Fifth Circuit is concerned. “Unlike the city of Jackson, Mississippi, which is 175–200 miles from the borders of Tennessee and Louisiana, the evidence in this case shows that El Paso and Santa Teresa are part of the same metropolitan area, though separated by a state line, and that people regularly go between the two cities for commerce, work, and medical care,” the court wrote.

What about those Texans living along the approximately 700 miles of its southern border and for whom crossing into Mexico to access abortion care is closer and more realistic than traveling to New Mexico? For those Texans the Fifth Circuit offers a shrug. “We note that this analysis would likely be different in the context of an international border, and we disclaim any suggestion that the analysis here applies to a city across an international border from a United States city in question,” the court wrote.

So let’s summarize here. The Fifth Circuit said in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott that a couple of hundred miles within a state is not too far to travel for an abortion. Then it said in Jackson v. Currier that if those couple of hundred miles forces a patient to travel out of state, then it is too far. But then Tuesday, it ruled it was perfectly fine to make Texans travel out-of-state to access abortion care. Travel across the border to Mexico, however, is a different question. On that, the Fifth Circuit punted.

If you’re confused, you should be. When read together, the Fifth Circuit’s recent decisions make no sense, if what you’re looking for is a clear and precise statement of the law as to how far is too far to travel before a regulation becomes an undue burden. They only make sense if what you’re looking for is a trail of crumbs to entice the conservatives on the Roberts Court to follow the Fifth Circuit’s lead and offer legal cover for abortion restrictions nationwide.

Reproductive rights advocates in Texas have said they will file an emergency appeal of Tuesday’s decision with the Roberts Court, which is exactly what they have to do as advocates to vigorously defend Texans from this latest attack on abortion rights. And while the chances the Roberts Court takes up any emergency appeal are slim, it’s clear the Supreme Court is going to have to answer, sooner or later, just how far states can force patients to travel to access abortion care. The conservative Fifth Circuit is going to make sure of it.

credo_rewire_vote_3

Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!

VOTE!

Thank you for supporting our work!