Religious Challenge to Indiana Abortion Restrictions Certified as Class Action

In Anonymous Plaintiff 1 v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., June 6, 2023), an Indiana state trial court judge agreed to certify as a class action a suit challenging Indiana's statute restricting abortions.  In the case, the court has already granted a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs whose religious beliefs permit or require abortions in situations not allowed under Indiana law. (See prior posting.) The court certified the class as:

All persons in Indiana whose religious beliefs direct them to obtain abortions in situations prohibited by Senate Enrolled Act No. 1(ss) who need, or will need, to obtain an abortion and who are not, or will not be, able to obtain an abortion because of the Act.

Indiana Capital Chronicle reports on the decision.

Lawsuit Challenges Laws Restricting Abortion Clinic Sidewalk Counselors

Suit was filed yesterday in a Colorado federal district court challenging on free speech grounds a Colorado statute and a Denver ordinance that prohibit approaching a person within 8 feet of an abortion clinic or other health care facility "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to ..., or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person." According to the complaint (full text) in Faustin v. Polis, (D CO, filed 6/1/2023):

Defendants’ ban on approaching women outside of abortion clinics to speak with them unquestionably discriminates based on the content—and even the viewpoint—of speech. On its face, the ban applies only to speech with a particular purpose and message: speech “for the purpose . . . of engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling.”... And it targets only that speech on one side of the abortion debate: speech “protest[ing] or counsel[ing] against” what Colorado euphemistically terms “certain medical procedures.”... Defendants’ ban is also content- and viewpoint-based due to the nature of its justification: protecting the “unwilling listener’s interest in avoiding unwanted communication” from pro-life speakers when seeking “access to a medical facility.”...

First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Oklahoma Suprme Court Says 2 Anti-Abortion Laws Are Unconstitutional

In Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. State of Oklahoma, (OK Sup. Ct., May 31, 2023), the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision held two recently enacted abortion bans unconstitutional under the state constitution.  In doing so, the court relied on its prior decision in Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond, (OK Sup. Ct., March 21, 2023)  which held that "a woman has an inherent right to choose to terminate her pregnancy if at any point in the pregnancy, the woman's physician has determined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability that the continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the woman's life due to the pregnancy itself or due to a medical condition that the woman is either currently suffering from or likely to suffer from during the pregnancy." In the most recent case, the court said in part:

S.B. 1503 prohibits abortions after detection of a fetal heartbeat except in case of medical emergency. S.B. 1503 states in relevant part: "Sections 3 and 4 of this act shall not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance of this act." S.B. 1503, § 5(A). There is no definition of medical emergency. There is also no severability clause.

H.B. 4327 on the other hand is a total ban on all abortions unless the "abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency" or the "pregnancy is the result of rape, sexual assault, or incest that has been reported to law enforcement."... H.B. 4327 states that "'Medical emergency' means a condition in which an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."...

Pursuant to this Court's decision in Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond ... we find these two statutes to also be unconstitutional....

The court concluded that the severability clause in HB 4327 was insufficient to save the statute. AP reports on the decision.

New Michigan Law Bars Employment Discrimination Because of Abortion

Yesterday, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed SB147 (full text) which amends the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to bar discrimination because the individual has had an abortion. Bridge Michigan reports on the new law.

5th Circuit Hears Arguments on FDA Approval of Abortion Drug

Yesterday the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food & Drug Administration.  In the case, a Texas federal district court held that plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the FDA's 2021 action allowing the abortion drug mifepristone to be distributed by mail violates the Comstock Act and thus was also in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court also concluded that the FDA's approval in 2000 of doctors prescribing mifepristone violated the agency's rules for approval of new drugs. (See prior posting.) Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of the district court's order that is to last until appeals to both the 5th Circuit and the Supreme Court have run their course. (See prior posting.)  CNN reports on yesterday's oral arguments.

North Carolina Legislature Overrides Veto of Abortion Law

 The North Carolina legislature last night voted to override Governor Roy Cooper's veto of Senate Bill 20 which imposes elaborate new restrictions on abortions in the state, summarized in this prior posting. 

Reuters reports on the legislature's action.

North Carolina Governor Vetoes New Abortion Restrictions

Yesterday, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper vetoed (veto message) (press release) Senate Bill 20 (full text) which imposed numerous new restrictions on abortions.  According to the General Asembly Conference Committee's summary of the bill:

Part I of the Conference Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 20 would repeal and replace the current abortion law in North Carolina. Under the new law, abortion would be permitted through the first twelve weeks of pregnancy for any reason, through the twentieth week of pregnancy if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, through the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy if there is a life-limiting anomaly in the unborn child, and at any time if there is a medical emergency for the pregnant woman. Part I would also criminalize the provision or advertising of abortion-inducing drugs in certain circumstances, prohibit eugenic abortions, and establish informed consent and reporting requirements for abortion.

NPR reports on the governor's action, saying that now a veto override battle will take place in the legislature.

Montana Supreme Court: State Constitution Protects Abortion Care by Advance Practice Registered Nurses

In Weems v. State of Montana, (MT Sup. Ct., May 12, 2023), the Montana Supreme Court held that a 2005 Montana statute that bars Advance Practice Registered Nurses from delivering abortion care violates the Montana Constitution.  The court summarized its decision:

Article II, Section 10, of the Montana Constitution guarantees a woman a fundamental right of privacy to seek abortion care from a qualified health care provider of her choosing, absent a clear demonstration of a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk. The State has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that APRN-FNPs and APRN-CNMs providing abortion care present a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk. The State has failed to present any evidence that demonstrates abortions performed by APRNs include more risk than those provided by physicians or PAs. The State has failed to identify any reason why APRNs should be restricted from providing abortions, and thus failed to articulate a medically acknowledged, bona fide health risk. The District Court correctly determined that no genuine dispute of material fact exists regarding the safety and efficacy of APRNs providing early abortion care. Accordingly, § 50-20-109(1)(a), MCA, is an unconstitutional interference with a woman’s right of privacy to seek medical care from a qualified provider of her choice.

Law & Crime reports on the decision.

New British Law Creates 150 Meter Buffer Zone Around Abortion Clinics

 On May 2, Britain's Public Order Act 2023 gained Royal Assent. Section 9 of the Act (full text) creates a 150 meter safe access zone around any abortion clinic.The section provides in part:

It is an offence for a person who is within a safe access zone to do an act with the intent of, or reckless as to whether it has the effect of—

(a)influencing any person’s decision to access, provide or facilitate the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic,

(b)obstructing or impeding any person accessing, providing, or facilitating the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic, or

(c)causing harassment, alarm or distress to any person in connection with a decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services at an abortion clinic....

where the person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is within the safe access zone for the abortion clinic.

The Secretary of State must still promulgate the effective date of this section.  Law & Religion UK has more on the new law.

Montana Governor Signs 5 Abortion-Related Bills

On Wednesday, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed into law five bills recently passed by the Montana legislature which regulate abortion procedures or availability.  The Daily Montanan reports on the bills that will now become law. Here is its description of each bill:

Senate Bill 154 ... carves out an exception to abortion under the constitutional right to privacy. A legal review note for the bill said it was at odds with the state constitution, which [Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Kieth] Regier responded to in a rebuttal saying it was the state’s Supreme Court that decided that abortion was covered under the right to privacy, and not the constitution.

House Bill 303... provides protections for medical practitioners and facilities that object to participation in health care services based on conscience, defined as “ethical, moral, or religious beliefs or principles.”...

House Bill 575 ... bans abortions after 24 weeks with a definition for viability by that stage of development, and it requires medical practitioners to perform and keep record of an ultrasound. 

House Bill 625 ... is a resurrection of the ballot issue LR-131 that voters rejected last fall, which would have required doctors save any infant born alive after an abortion later in pregnancy.

House Bill 786 ... has the state create regulations for the “humane disposition” of dead infants and fetuses, and other regulations of maternal complications and deaths tied “directly or indirectly” to abortions.

Five additional abortion-related bills are close to being submitted to the Governor for his signature.

Supreme Court Denies Cert. In Challenge to Indiana Fetal Remains Law

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied review in Jane Doe No. 1 v. Rokita, (Docket No. 22-951, certiorari denied 5/1/2023) (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected 1st Amendment challenges to an Indiana statute that requires abortion providers to dispose of fetal remains either by burial or by cremation. (See prior posting.) The case Docket with links to filings in the Supreme Court is here.  AP reports on the Court's action.

Sign Permit Did Not Infringe 1st Amendment Rights of Anti-Abortion Protester

In Roswell v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, (D MD, April 28, 2023), a Maryland federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to plaintiff who challenged the requirement that he obtain a permit in order to place A-frame signs outside a Planned Parenthood Clinic as part of his anti-abortion protest. Rejecting plaintiff's free speech claim, the court concluded that the permit ordinance is content neutral, is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that there are ample alternatives for plaintiff to communicate his message. Rejecting plaintiff's free exercise claim, the court said in part:

Here, the challenged ordinances are unconcerned with religious exercise; they neither prohibit nor compel religious conduct. Importantly, Plaintiff has made no allegation that either the Police or Zoning ordinance was enacted for the purpose of suppressing religious expression. Further, as discussed, Plaintiff has been freely engaging in protest activity outside of the Planned Parenthood. Plaintiff contends that “his religious conviction compels him to use every effort available to dissuade women” from obtaining abortions, and he has continued to freely express his religious beliefs in front of the facility, merely without the use of A-frame signs. 

Governors In Minnesota and Washington Sign Bills Protecting Access to Abortion and Gender-Affirming Care

On April 27, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed three bills protecting right to abortion and gender-affirming health care.  A press release from the Governor's Office describes the legislation:

Chapter 28, House File 16 prohibits mental health practitioners or mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to vulnerable adults and clients under age 18. The bill also prohibits fraudulent or deceptive advertising practices relating to conversion therapy.

Chapter 29, House File 146 prevents state courts or officials from complying with child removal requests, extraditions, arrests, or subpoenas related to gender-affirming health care that a person receives in Minnesota....

Chapter 31, House File 366 , the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act, ensures that patients traveling to Minnesota for abortion care, and the providers who serve them, are protected from legal attacks and criminal penalties from other states.

In Washington state, on April 27 Governor Jay Inslee signed five bills protecting access to abortion and gender-affirming services. A press release from the Governor's office describes the legislation:

In anticipation of a Trump-appointed judge’s ruling pulling a common and safe abortion pill from shelves nationally, the governor acted quickly to secure a three-year supply of mifepristone for the state that could be distributed regardless of federal court action.

With the 30,000 doses being held by the state Department of Corrections, all that was left to do was pass a bill that authorized the department to distribute the medication to health providers.... SB 5768 ... does just that....

... Shield Law, HB 1469... prohibits compliance with out-of-state subpoenas related to abortion and gender affirming care services; prevents cooperation with out-of-state investigations; bans extraditions related to abortion and gender affirming care services that occur legally in Washington; and protects providers from harassment for providing these services.....

Inslee also signed a bill to ensure health providers can’t be disciplined for providing legal reproductive health services or gender affirming care in Washington. HB 1340... protects health providers from disciplinary action or having their licenses revoked for “unprofessional conduct” if the care provided follows state law, regardless of where their patient resides.....

HB 1155, the “My Health, My Data” Act, ... will increase privacy protections around collecting, sharing and selling consumer health data. Some popular consumer products can track and share data on individuals’ health — and protections around the use of that data became more necessary with the attack on abortion care in other states....

Patients often face cost-sharing [under their health insurance plans] for receiving abortion care. SB 5242 eliminates cost-sharing for abortions and protects patients from unexpected expenses they may not be able to cover.

Ex-Husband Brings Wrongful Death Suit Against Wife's Friends Who Supplied Abortion Pills

 A novel wrongful death lawsuit was filed last month in a Texas state trial court by the ex-husband of a woman whose two friends assisted her in obtaining abortion medication.  The complaint (full text) in Silva v. Noyola, (TX Dist. Ct., filed 3/10/2023), alleges in part:

Under the law of Texas, a person who assists a pregnant woman in obtaining a self-managed abortion has committed the crime of murder and can be sued for wrongful death.... In defiance of these laws, defendants Jackie Noyola and Amy Carpenter  assisted Brittni Silva in murdering Ms. Silva’s unborn child with illegally obtained abortion pills. Ms. Noyola and Ms. Carpenter also instructed Ms. Silva to conceal their criminal and murderous actions from plaintiff Marcus A. Silva, the father of the child and the husband of Brittni Silva. Ms. Noyola arranged for the delivery of the illegal drugs from Aracely Garcia, which were used to murder baby Silva in July of 2022. 

Marcus Silva recently learned of the defendants’ involvement in the murder of his child, and he brings suit against them for wrongful death and conspiracy....

The manufacturer of the abortion pills that Brittni used is jointly and severally liable for the wrongful death of baby Silva, and it will be added as a defendant once identified in discovery. The manufacturer of the pills caused the death of baby Silva through a “wrongful act” because it violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461–1462, which imposes federal criminal liability on anyone who knowingly sends abortion pills through the mail or through any express company, common carrier, or interactive computer service.

The Intercept reports on the lawsuit.

North Dakota Governor Signs New Abortion Ban That Has Limited Exceptions

Yesterday, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed SB 2150 (full text) into law. The new law bars abortions except when it was intended to prevent the pregnant female's death or a serious physical health risk. The law also permits abortions during the first 6 weeks of pregnancy if the pregnancy resulted from gross sexual imposition, sexual imposition, sexual abuse of a ward, or incest. AP reports on the new law, saying in part:

The North Dakota law is designed to take effect immediately, but last month the state Supreme Court ruled a previous ban is to remain blocked while a lawsuit over its constitutionality proceeds. Last week, lawmakers said they intended to pass the latest bill as a message to the state’s high court signaling that the people of North Dakota want to restrict abortion.

In its decision last month, the state Supreme Court concluded that the absence of an exception in the abortion ban for preserving the health of the mother is a critical defect in the state's prior abortion ban.  The new law is presumably designed to respond to that concern.

Supreme Court Stays District Court's Order That Invalidated FDA's Approval of Abortion Pill

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday evening in Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Sup. Ct., April 21, 2023), and in a companion case in which the FDA was a party, granted stays of a Texas federal district court's order that had found the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone to be invalid. The stays will remain in effect while appeals work their way through the courts. Justice Thomas indicated that he would have denied the applications for stays.  Justice Alito filed an opinion dissenting from the grant of the stays, saying that the applicants have not shown that they would suffer irreparable harm if the stays were not granted. SCOTUSblog has additional reporting on the Supreme Court's action.

Additional Administrative Stay Issued By Supreme Court In Abortion Pill Case

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito today (April 19) in Food & Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine issued an Order (full text) extending the Court's April 14 administrative stay until Friday April 21. At issue is a Texas federal district court's decision invalidating the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. Previously the Supreme Court had stayed the district court's order only until today. (See prior posting.) CNBC reports on Justice Alito's action.

WAPO Says Judge Hid His Authorship of Anti-Abortion, Anti-LGBT Law Review Article

Washington Post reported today that Texas federal district court judge Matthew Kacsmaryk who issued last week's controversial opinion finding the FDA's approval of the abortion medication mifepristone invalid removed his name as author of a pending law review article as his nomination to the federal bench became imminent.  According to the Post:

As a lawyer for a conservative legal group, Matthew Kacsmaryk in early 2017 submitted an article to a Texas law review criticizing Obama-era protections for transgender people and those seeking abortions.

The Obama administration, the draft article argued, had discounted religious physicians who “cannot use their scalpels to make female what God created male” and “cannot use their pens to prescribe or dispense abortifacient drugs designed to kill unborn children.”

But a few months after the piece arrived, an editor at the law journal ... received an unusual email: ... Kacsmaryk, who had originally been listed as the article’s sole author, said he would be removing his name and replacing it with those of two colleagues at his legal group, First Liberty Institute....

The article, titled “The Jurisprudence of the Body,” was published in September 2017 by the Texas Review of Law and Politics, a right-leaning journal that Kacsmaryk had led as a law student at the University of Texas. But Kacsmaryk’s role in the article was not disclosed, nor did he list the article on the paperwork he submitted to the Senate in advance of confirmation hearings....

A spokesman for First Liberty ... said that Kacsmaryk’s name had been a “placeholder” on the article and that Kacsmaryk had not provided a “substantive contribution.”....

The full Post article has additional details.

Colorado Bars Abortion Pill Reversal; Suit Challenges New Law

Yesterday, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law SB23-190 (full text). The new law makes it a deceptive trade practice to advertise that a clinic offers abortions, referrals for abortions or emergency contraceptives when it does not offer these services.  It also provides that it is unprofessional conduct for a healthcare provider to prescribe or administer medication abortion reversal, unless by Oct. 1 the state medical, pharmacy and nursing boards all have in effect rules finding that it is a generally accepted standard of practice to engage in medication abortion reversal.

On the same day the bill was signed, an anti-abortion Catholic healthcare clinic filed suit in a Colorado federal district court challenging the new law's provisions on medication abortion reversal as violating its 1st and 14th Amendment rights. The complaint (full text) in Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, (D CO, filed 4/14/2023), alleges that the law violates its Free Exercise rights because it is neither neutral nor generally applicable, saying in part:

[A]bortion pill reversal is nothing more than supplemental progesterone. And there are a multitude of off-label uses of progesterone, which has been widely prescribed to women—including pregnant women—for more than 50 years.

... Yet SB 23-190 makes no attempt to regulate—much less outright prohibit— the off-label use of progesterone in any other circumstance. That omission renders SB 23-190 not generally applicable.

The complaint also alleges that the law violates their free speech rights and patients' right to medical treatment.  According to Becket Law, the district court quickly granted Bella Health temporary emergency relief and set a hearing on a preliminary injunction while litigation proceeds for April 24. CPR News reports on the lawsuit.

Supreme Court Grants 5-Day Administrative Stay of Texas District Court's Abortion Pill Order

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito this afternoon in Food & Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Docket No. 22A902, April 14, 2023), granted a 5-day administrative stay of a Texas federal district court's order invalidating the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. Any response to the application for a lengthier stay must be filed by 11:59 pm April 18. Any response to that filing must be submitted by noon the next day. CNN reports on developments.

UPDATE: Here is the White House's reaction to the Court's stay.