On July 28th, the Eight Circuit US Court of Appeals vacated a lower court’s decision favoring Planned Parenthood in a lawsuit against Arkansas. In 2015, the state passed a law severely limiting access to abortion pills, prompting Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma to file a lawsuit. The women’s health care organization sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the statute put too much of a burden on women seeking abortions. In March of last year, US District Judge Kristine Baker agreed with the plaintiffs and granted an injunction.
Arkansas Law
The law in question, the Abortion-Inducing Drugs Safety Act, set forth strict requirements for physicians wishing to offer abortion drugs. First, a doctor who provides this type of drug must have a contractual agreement with another physician in the area. That agreement must provide for medical services in the event that the person taking the pills requires medical attention. Secondly, the contracted physician must have admitting privileges allowing the doctor to handle emergency gynecological issues. Lastly, the law requires the patient to have the contact information of the contracted physician and the hospital that would supply the emergency services.
Argument Against
The law was seen by some as a draconian anti-abortion measure. In arguing against the statute, Planned Parenthood said, “The law would impose severe and medically unnecessary restrictions on medication abortion, a very safe method of abortion if used early in pregnancy.” Out of three abortion facilities in the state, Planned Parenthood runs two. The organization said it simply could not find doctors willing to enter a contractual agreement as required by the law. Physicians were just too afraid of the political blowback that would follow such an agreement. Without the Planned Parenthood facilities, any woman wanting an abortion in Fayetteville would have to drive nearly 400 miles to receive treatment. And because of a legally mandated 48-hour waiting period, a woman would have to make the journey twice: once for consultation and twice for actual services.
District Court’s Position
District Judge Baker agreed whole-heartedly with Planned Parenthood. In her court order, she acknowledged the extreme hardship brought on by the new law. “Each time these women travel to access abortion services, they will have to arrange the necessary funds, transportation, child care, and time off work required to travel.”
Baker found that these burdens “may cause women who otherwise would have obtained an abortion not to obtain one at all.” Worst of all, some women might end up take extreme measures to enact their own abortion. Thus, she found that “the burden imposed by each of these provisions separately, or when analyzed together, would be undue and, therefore, unconstitutional.” In the end, she enjoined implementation of the statute.
US Court of Appeals
Judge Raymond Gruender, writing for the Eighth Circuit, overturned the lower court’s decision and sent the case back for reconsideration. Gruender said the lower court “abused its discretion” by failing to discover how many women would be burdened by the law. Absent such a determination, the lower court’s preliminary injunction was baseless, according to the Eighth Circuit. Thus, Judge Gruender asked the lower court to determine “the number of women unduly burdened by the contract-physician requirement” and to decide whether that number constitutes a “large fraction.” While the district court mulls over the case, the injunction has been lifted.
Needless to say, Planned Parenthood was not happy with the ruling. Daniel Wells, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood, told Reuters that the organization would be considering its options. “This law was written by politicians, and not doctors, and is part of a national strategy to end access to abortion step by step and law by law,” he said.
Looking ahead, pro-choice advocates hope Planned Parenthood finds a way to prevail in this matter.
Leave a Comment