Louisiana abortion providers sue over new hospital privilege requirement

[Draggingtree]

Legal Insurrection: Louisiana abortion providers sue over new hospital privilege requirement

Posted by Amy Miller ▪ Sunday, August 24, 2014 at 5:30pm

 

Must have admitting privileges at hospital within 30 miles

.

On Friday, several abortion providers sued the state of Louisiana over new laws governing doctors who choose to perform the procedure.

 

Louisiana’s new law, signed by Governor Bobby Jindal in June, requires that doctors who perform abortions have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced and that provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services.

 

Abortion providers are suing because they argue that the provisions in the statute may cause every clinic in the state to close. Bloomberg reports:

 

The Louisiana legislation, signed by Republican Governor Bobby Jindal in June, doesn’t allow enough time for compliance,

[Cyber_Liberty]

Hospital admission privilege is the bare minimum that should be required for people scraping sharp knives around the insides of patients. Seems to me. I dunno, just a thought.

[clearvision]

I don't think Texas' version of this has been shot down yet.

 

5th Circuit upholds Texas law requiring hospital admission privileges for abortion doctors

[Draggingtree]

I don't think Texas' version of this has been shot down yet.

 

5th Circuit upholds Texas law requiring hospital admission privileges for abortion doctors

Could be wrong but think Mississippi and Alabama have the same law.

[Draggingtree]

Judge blocks Louisiana law requiring abortion providers have hospital privileges

Posted by Amy Miller ▪ Monday, September 1, 2014 at 8:30am

 

State-level patient protections are under fire (again.)

 

On Sunday, a federal judge temporarily blocked a new Louisiana law that would require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their practice. U.S. District Judge John deGravelles’ ruling potentially saved all 5 of Louisiana’s abortion clinics from being forced to close their doors today.

 

Via Reuters:

“Plaintiffs will be allowed to operate lawfully while continuing their efforts to obtain privileges,” Federal Judge John deGravelles wrote in the decision.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/09/judge-blocks-louisiana-law-requiring-abortion-providers-have-hospital-privileges/

[Draggingtree]

Lyle Denniston Reporter

Posted Tue, September 2nd, 2014 12:05 am

Legal wars on abortion heating up

Nine months after the Supreme Court allowed enforcement of a Texas law that led to the closing of a third of all clinics in that state, a new courthouse battle over that same law is rapidly developing. In a rushed motion filed on Sunday, the state of Texas took the issue back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit after a federal judge in Austin struck it downon Friday afternoon. The issue may not stop at the appeals court level.

 

The issue has also spread to Lousiana, where a federal judge on Sunday night temporarily blocked a similar law from taking full effect in that state Monday. Earlier, the dispute had also reached Alabama and Mississippi as decisions began emerging in lawsuits challenging a series of new laws by state legislatures narrowing access to abortions.

At the center of this controversy are state laws, nearly identical in form, http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/09/legal-wars-on-abortion-heating-up/#more-217219

[Draggingtree]

Lyle Denniston Reporter

Posted Thu, June 27th, 2013 3:50 pm

 

New test on abortion rights

 

Edging closer to a new review of state power to restrict the right to abortion, the Supreme Court on Thursday added to its docket a case from Oklahoma, while indicating that it would not move ahead until it gets some answers from that state’s Supreme Court. If the case does go forward to a full-scale ruling by the Justices, it could be a test of state authority to ban abortions performed with medicines, rather than surgery.

The Court’s action comes at a time when a wave of new challenges to abortion has coursed through many of the nation’s state legislatures, leading to a number of new state laws that are considerably more restrictive of the constitutional right to end pregnancies that the Court first established in Roe v. Wade in 1973. That intense new campaign was highlighted just this week by a raucous session in the Texas state legislature over such a new law.

 

http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=166341

 

 

 

Looking back

[Draggingtree]

Argument preview: New look at abortion after nine years

 

(UPDATED)

 

By Lyle Denniston on Feb 24, 2016 at 4:25 pm

Analysis

 

UPDATED 5:44 p.m. In a matter of days, the Court will get a test of its current views on one of the restrictions at issue in the Texas abortion case previewed in this post: the requirement that doctors at abortion clinics have patient-admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the clinic. On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — the same court whose rulings are at issue in this post — blocked a federal judge’s order finding a similar provision in Louisiana to be unconstitutional; the judge had barred enforcement of the privileges requirement. Lawyers for clinics and doctors in Louisiana immediately said they would ask the Supreme Court to lift the Fifth Circuit’s stay order, and put the district judge’s order back into effect. It should be noted that, in November 2013, the Supreme Court split five to four in an earlier stage of the Texas case and allowed the admitting privileges requirement at issue in that case to take effect. Justice Kennedy was in the majority in that order. The new request by the abortion providers will be the first abortion issue to reach the Court with only eight members.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/argument-preview-new-look-at-abortion-after-nine-years/

[Draggingtree]

New plea to protect Louisiana abortion clinics

 

By Lyle Denniston on Feb 26, 2016 at 8:27 pm

Less than a week before the Supreme Court reopens the constitutional question of abortion rights, clinics and doctors in Louisiana on Friday began an effort in the Court to protect the remaining clinics in that state against a threat that three of the four will have to close, leaving the state with one doctor legally able to provide the service. The new application (June Medical Services v. Gee) seeks to block a 2014 state law that requires doctors to have patient-admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of their abortion clinic.

 

That law is identical to a Texas law that the Court will be examining next Wednesday, in the first full review of an abortion case in nine years. Also at issue in the Texas case is another law, requiring abortion clinics to have the same facilities as a fully functioning surgical center, a costly upgrade that the clinics argue is unnecessary for medical reasons. (That case is Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.)

 

The Court probably will have to act on the new Louisiana challenge before it gets very deeply into its review of the Texas laws, because the Louisiana law has already led to the closing of two of the remaining clinics, and could lead to closing a third. If that happens, Louisiana would be like Mississippi — that is, with only one clinic left to serve the entire state. The Mississippi clinic has been spared by a lower court in another case involving a doctors’ admitting privileges law, but state officials are contesting that in a case that the Supreme Court has not yet considered; the case is on hold.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/new-plea-to-protect-louisiana-abortion-clinics/

[Draggingtree]

Texas Case Could Define Extent of Abortion Limits by Alexa Ura and Lauren Flannery

·

Feb. 28, 2016

· 1Comment

 

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the legal challenge to abortion restrictions passed by Texas lawmakers in 2013. Many observers had predicted a landmark decision might spring from the case, clarifying how far states can go in regulating the procedure, but that's less certain in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia's death.

FULL STORY

RELATED

· Obama, Davis Ask Supreme Court to Reject Texas Abortion Law

· http://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/28/abortion-rulings-texas/

[Draggingtree]

20,000 Problems Facing Abortion Advocates At The Supreme Court

 

When the Supreme Court on March 2 assesses the abortion industry’s claims about threats to women’s health, it will have years of real-world tests to examine.

By Casey Mattox MARCH 1, 2016

On March 2 the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a challenge to a Texas law requiring abortionists to adhere to the same basic, common-sense health and safety standards as similar surgical centers. Justice Antonin Scalia’s death means the eight remaining justices will decide whether the Constitution affords a “right” to a less “safe” abortion.

 

What the Court won’t be asked to decide, however, may be even more noteworthy—and should raise questions about the abortion industry and its arguments both inWhole Women’s Health and for any nominee who would replace Justice Scalia.

 

Almost three years ago the Texas legislature enacted HB2, the principle components of which are (1) restricting abortions after 20 weeks, when we know the unborn child can feel pain; (2) requiring abortionists to comply with the Food and Drug Administration’s approved protocol on chemical abortions; and (3) ensuring that abortionists would have to comply with basic health and safety standards.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/01/20000-problems-facing-abortion-advocates-at-the-supreme-court/

[Draggingtree]

Supreme Court To Hear Arguments on Texas Abortion Law

by Alexa Ura March 2, 2016

 

WASHINGTON — After a long legal journey, a challenge to Texas' 2013 abortion law reaches the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, with oral arguments set inWhole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedtover the constitutionality of restrictions collectively known as House Bill 2.

Beyond potentially closing many of the state's remaining abortion clinics, the case could have national reach by spelling out how far states can go in restricting abortion and clarifying whether courts are allowed to question the motives of the GOP-controlled Legislature that passed the laws.

 

At issue: Texas abortion providers suing the state say two provisions of HB 2 will effectively shut down clinics in all but the state's major metropolitan areas. One provision requires abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospital-like ambulatory surgical centers, which range from minimum sizes for rooms and doorways to the number of nurses required to be on duty. A separate provision requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of an abortion clinic.

http://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/02/supreme-court-hear-arguments-texas-abortion-law/

[Draggingtree]

Argument analysis: Two options on abortion law?

By Lyle Denniston on Mar 2, 2016 at 1:58 pm

Analysis

It was unmistakably clear on Wednesday that the Supreme Court’s first close look at abortion rights in nine years will turn on the reaction of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, and there were at least sturdy hints that he would lead the Court in one of two directions. In an intense argument in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that ran twenty-six minutes longer than scheduled, Kennedy seemed poised to find a way out of a four-to-four split — if the initial vote comes to that — or to strike down by a narrow vote the two restrictions at issue in the 2013 Texas law, known as “HB2.”

 

Within minutes after the argument began shortly after ten o’clock, it seemed that the case might bog down in a dispute about whether the case contains any solid evidence of whether HB2 was, in fact, the cause for the sudden closing of half of all abortion clinics in the state and would cause even more to close if the Justices upheld the law’s two main clauses.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/argument-analysis-two-options-on-abortion-law/#more-239323

[Draggingtree]

New abortion case ready for the Court

Lyle Denniston Independent Contractor Reporter

Posted Thu, March 3rd, 2016 5:37 pm

 

The filing of two legal briefs in the Supreme Court has set up a new abortion case — from Louisiana — for prompt action by the Justices. At issue in the case of June Medical Services v. Gee is whether the Court will block enforcement of a state law that clinics and doctors argue will force the closing of all but one clinic, with one doctor, for the whole state.

 

Louisiana officials filed their defense of the law on Wednesday, and the challengers filed their reply brief earlier Thursday. The two documents sharply dispute what is at issue, and what the real-world impact on access to abortions in the state will be.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/new-abortion-case-ready-for-the-court/

[Draggingtree]

Louisiana limit on abortion blocked temporarily

 

By Lyle Denniston on Mar 4, 2016 at 4:21 pm

 

Over the lone dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon blocked the continued enforcement of a Louisiana law that required doctors who perform abortions to have a professional right to send patients to a hospital within thirty miles of their clinics. The Court did not give a full explanation, but did say it was following what it had done late last June in blocking a Texas law imposing the same rule, and other restrictions.

 

Just two days ago, the Justices had examined the Texas law during an intense hearing, and presumably cast their first, preliminary vote on how to rule in that case at a private Conference Friday morning. But there was nothing in the text of the Court’s afternoon order on the Louisiana law that would give a reliable hint of where it is headed on the constitutional controversy over abortion clinic restrictions.

Continue reading »

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/louisiana-limit-on-abortion-blocked-temporarily/#more-239518

[clearvision]

So if the court ties then the 5th court ruling stands and law is allowed if I understand it correctly.