Supreme Court Dismisses Cert. Grants On Title X Rule As HHS Considers Repeal

As previously reported, in February the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in three related cases challenging a Trump Administration rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services in March 2019. Among other things, the rule imposes new restrictions on abortion referrals by health care providers receiving Title X family planning funds. It effect was to cut off millions of federal dollars to Planned Parenthood. In April, however, the Biden Administration issued a proposed rule that would reverse the Trump Administration change in policy. (See prior posting.) In light of that, and the Government's assurance that it will continue to enforce the Trump Administration rules until they are changed (except in Maryland where an injunction is in force), the Supreme Court yesterday, by a vote of 6-3, dismissed the certiorari petitions. (American Medical Association v. Becerra, Docket No. 20-429, Becerra v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Docket No. 20-454, Oregon v. Becerra, Docket No. 20-539, cert. dismissed 5/17/2021) (Order List.) Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch would not have dismissed the petitions. SCOTUSblog reports on the Court's action.

Supreme Court Grants Review In Mississippi Abortion Ban Case

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center, (Docket No. 19-2392, certiorari granted 5/17/2021). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Mississippi statute that prohibits abortions, with limited exceptions, after 15 weeks' gestational age. The Supreme Court limited its grant of review to Question 1 presented in the petition for certiorari:

Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.

Here is the SCOTUSblog case page with all the filings in the case. NPR reports on the Court's grant of review.

Texas Passes Heartbeat Abortion Law With Broad Civil Enforcement Provision

Today the Texas legislature sent to Governor Greg Abbott for his signature SB8 (full text), the state's version of a "heartbeat" abortion law. Except in medical emergencies, it bans performing or inducing an abortion if the physician has detected a fetal heartbeat. Unique to the Texas law is a provision that allows any private person to bring a civil action against a physician who has violated the statute, and against anyone who knowingly aids or abets the abortion, including reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance, regardless of whether the person knew or should have known that the abortion would be performed or induced in violation of the statute. However, no action may be brought against the woman on whom the abortion was performed. Plaintiff may recover statutory damages of not less than $10,000 for each abortion the defendant has been involved in. Daily Beast reports on the new statute. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Vatican Cautions U.S. Bishops Over Moves To Deny Communion To President Biden

AP reported last month that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is considering issuing a document that would call for denying Communion to public officials-- including President Joe Biden-- who support abortion rights. Now the Vatican has made its views on the process known.  According to yesterday's National Catholic Reporter:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has urged the U.S. bishops to proceed with caution in their discussions about formulating a national policy "to address the situation of Catholics in public office who support legislation allowing abortion, euthanasia or other moral evils."...

In the letter to Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, [Cardinal Luis] Ladaria also insisted: such a policy cannot usurp the authority of an individual bishop in his diocese on the matter; the policy would require near unanimity; and it would be "misleading" to present abortion and euthanasia as "the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest level of accountability on the part of Catholics."

The letter, dated May 7 and obtained by Catholic News Service in Rome, said it was in response to a letter from Gomez informing the doctrinal congregation that the bishops were preparing to address the situation of Catholic politicians and "the worthiness to receive holy Communion."...

State Moves To Restrict Abortions Continue

A number of states continue attempts to restrict abortion rights.

In Montana, Governor Greg Gianforte last Monday signed three bills: HB 136 (full text) barring "perform[ing] an abortion of an unborn child capable of feeling pain unless it is necessary to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother; HB 140 (full text) requiring that before an abortion a pregnant woman must be given the opportunity to view an active ultrasound and hear a fetal heart tone; and HB 171 (full text) setting out procedures for prescribing abortion-inducing drugs, barring delivery of such drugs by mail and prohibiting providing such drugs in schools or on school grounds. Also yesterday the Montana legislature approved HB 167 (full text) calling for a referendum on the adoption of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Law & Crime reports on these developments.

In Oklahoma in recent days Governor Kevin Stitt has signed five bills on abortion: HB 1102 (full text) which defines “unprofessional conduct” to include the performance of an abortion unless performed to prevent the death or significant physical impairment of the mother; HB 1904 (full text) requiring doctors performing abortions to be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology; HB 2441 (full text) barring abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected, except to prevent death or serious risk of significant physical impairment of the mother; SB 584 (full text) extending ban on funding of provider who has been found by a court to have trafficked in fetal body parts to funding by cities or counties, as well as the state; SB 918 (full text) making abortion illegal if the U.S. Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade or a federal constitutional amendment restores state authority to outlaw abortions. AP reports on some of these developments.

Yesterday the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Memphis Center for Reproductive Health v. Slatery. In the case, a Tennessee federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of two bans on pre-viability abortions. One bans abortions when a fetal heartbeat is detectable. The other bans pre-viability abortions sought because of the race or sex of the fetus or a Down syndrome diagnosis. (See prior posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Arizona Enacts New Abortion Restrictions

Yesterday Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed SB 1457 (full text) placing additional limits on abortion in the state. The new law bans abortions sought because of a genetic abnormality of the fetus, except in medical emergencies. It prohibits performance of abortions in facilities run by or located on the property of public educational institutions, except when necessary to save the life of the mother. It prohibits the use of public funds for research that involves fetal cells. It prohibits mail delivery of abortion-inducing drugs. It requires that bodily remains from a surgical abortion be disposed of by cremation or burial, and gives the mother the right to determine the method to be used. ADF issued a press release announcing the bill signing.

Cert. Petition Filed In Challenge To New York's Abortion Coverage Requirement

A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court last week in Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell, (cert. filed 4/22/2021). In the case, a New York state appellate court rejected a challenge by several religious organizations and other plaintiffs to a New York administrative regulation  requiring health insurance policies in New York to provide coverage for medically necessary abortion services. (See prior posting.) According to the petition for review, the New York regulation "exempts religious entities whose 'purpose' is to inculcate religious values and who 'employ' and 'serve' primarily coreligionists. But religious organizations must cover abortions if they have a broader religious mission (such as service to the poor)or if they employ or serve people regardless of their faith." New York's highest state court denied leave to appeal. Becket Fund issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.

5th Circuit Remands Religious Medical Providers' Challenge To Anti-Discrimination Rules

In Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Becerra, (5th Cir., April 15, 2021), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded to a Texas federal district court a challenge by religious medical providers to a 2016 Health and Human Services rule that prohibited discrimination on the basis of "termination of pregnancy" and "gender identity." The appeals court noted that since the district court decision, "the legal landscape has shifted significantly." It pointed out: 

HHS repealed the 2016 rule and finalized a new rule in 2020; the Supreme Court interpreted Title VII’s prohibition of “sex discrimination” to include gender identity...; two district courts entered preliminary injunctions against the 2020 rule....; President Biden issued an executive order declaring that his administration would apply Bostock’s interpretation of Title VII to other statutes prohibiting sex discrimination; and HHS is again considering a new rule....

The court said that on remand the district court should consider they type of relief that should be granted and whether the case is moot.

NIH Reverses Trump Era Restrictions On Fetal Tissue Research

 As reported by Politico:

The Biden administration on Friday moved to unwind strict Trump-era restrictions on federal-funded medical research using fetal tissue obtained by abortions, reversing policies that scientists warned would devastate the development of treatments for a broad range of diseases.

The Trump administration, under pressure from allied anti-abortion groups, ended fetal tissue research at the National Institutes of Health and established an ethics board to review government support for the research at universities and other labs. The board, which was filled with critics of the research, met just once and rejected 13 of 14 projects that NIH scientists had deemed worthy of support.

In a Notice (full text) published yesterday, the National Institutes of Health said in part:

This notice informs the extramural research community that HHS is reversing its 2019 decision that all research applications for NIH grants and contracts proposing the use of human fetal tissue from elective abortions will be reviewed by an Ethics Advisory Board. Accordingly, HHS/NIH will not convene another NIH Human Fetal Tissue Research Ethics Advisory Board.

HHS Proposes Reversal of Trump Administration Title X Family Planning Grant Rules

Yesterday the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services published a proposed rule that would reverse the Trump Administration rules on federally funded family planning services and return, with a few modifications, to the rules in effect before 2019.  As summarized by NPR News:

The [Trump Administration] rules ... forbid any provider who provides or refers patients for abortions from receiving federal funding through Title X to cover services such as contraception and STD screenings for low-income people....

The Trump administration implemented the current rules in an effort to "defund Planned Parenthood," as he had promised supporters during both his campaign and his presidency. That prompted more than 1,000 health clinics in dozens of states, including but not limited to Planned Parenthood, to leave the program.

The HHS Release (full text) titled Ensuring Access to Equitable, Affordable, Client-Centered, Quality Family Planning Services says in part:

For five decades, Title X family planning clinics have played a critical role in ensuring access to a broad range of family planning and related preventive health services for millions of low-income or uninsured individuals and others.... Title X providers offered clients a broad range of effective and medically safe contraceptive methods approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Title X-funded sexually transmitted infection (STI) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening services prevented transmission and adverse health consequences....

Given the previous success of the program, the large negative public health consequences of maintaining the 2019 rules, the substantial compliance costs for grantees, and the lack of tangible benefits, the Department proposes revoking the 2019 Title X regulations. As has been clearly borne out by case law and history, the Department has the discretion to make this determination and it is in the interest of public health....

FDA Lifts In-Person Dispensing Requirement For Abortion Drug During COVID Emergency

On Monday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in a letter (full text) to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine announced that during the COVID-19 emergency, it is lifting the in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion drug  Mifepristone. The agency said that it was exercising enforcement discretion because of the additional COVID-related risks to patients and healthcare personnel involved in clinic visits solely to obtain the drug.  It likewise will allow prescriptions for Mifepristone to be filled by mail. Washington Free Beacon reports on criticism of the FDA's move by Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion groups.

6th Circuit En Banc Upholds Ohio's Ban On Doctors Knowingly Performing Abortions Because of Down Syndrome

In Preterm-Cleveland v. McCloud, (6th Cir., April 13, 2021), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc in a complicated set of fragmented opinions spanning 111 pages upheld Ohio's statute which prohibits a doctor from performing an abortion if the doctor has knowledge that the woman’s reason, in whole or part, for having the abortion is that she does not want a child with Down syndrome. The vote was 9-7. 

Eight judges joined several portions of Judge Batchelder's opinion to make these portions the opinion of the court.  Critical to the majority opinion was the fact that the law does not apply so long as the woman does not disclose the reason for her abortion to the doctor performing it. Indeed, according to the majority, even if the doctor performing the abortion learns of the fetal-Down-syndrome diagnosis, "knowledge of the diagnosis is not knowledge of the reason." With that understanding, the majority went on to say in part:

The right to an abortion before viability is not absolute. The “[S]tate may regulate abortion before viability as long as it does not impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.”...

H.B. 214 advances the State’s legitimate interests and will not prevent a large fraction of the women it affects from obtaining abortions. As mentioned, H.B. 214 furthers three valid and legitimate interests by protecting: (1) the Down syndrome community from the stigma associated with the practice of Down-syndrome-selective abortions, (2) pregnant women and their families from coercion by doctors who advocate abortion of Down-syndrome-afflicted fetuses, and (3) the integrity and ethics of the medical profession by preventing doctors from becoming witting participants in Down-syndrome-selective abortions. These are legitimate interests....

The burdens here are that H.B. 214 will (1) prevent a full, open, and honest conversation with the doctor who will perform the abortion by forcing the woman to withhold this reason for the abortion and (2) require her to engage in “doctor shopping” to find a doctor who is unaware of her reason for having the abortion....

Ohio’s broad definition of knowledge does not alter the reality that the woman remains in control of who knows, and who does not know, the reason for her abortion. And the record simply does not support the notion that a large number of doctors would independently learn of the reason such that it would place a substantial obstacle in the path of most women seeking abortions.... Ohio’s knowledge requirement does not amount to an undue burden.

Only five judges joined other parts of Judge Batchelder's opinion. Four separate concurring opinions were filed, as were six separate dissenting opinions. Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the decision.

UPDATE: For additional discussion of the case, see this later posting.

Court Upholds NY Law Barring Discrimination Against Employees Because Of Reproductive Health Decisions

In Slattery v. Cuomo, (ND NY, March 31, 2021), a New York federal district court dismissed free exercise, free speech, freedom of association and vagueness challenges to a New York Labor Law §203-e  which prohibits employers from discriminating or taking retaliatory action against an employee because of the person's reproductive health decision making. The law was challenged by a pro-life crisis pregnancy center which required its employees to agree with, adhere to and convey the Catholic view on abortion and sexual relations outside of marriage. The court concluded that the law does not target the Catholic religion in violation of the free exercise clause. Rejecting plaintiffs' free speech challenge, the court said in part:

Section 203-e does not serve to limit any of Plaintiffs’ advocacy against abortion, promotion of certain religious views, and public arguments for particular versions of sexual morality. The statute does not prevent the Plaintiffs, who provide medical information to pregnant women, from telling those women that they should not get abortions, urging them not to use contraception, or telling them about Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. The statute simply prohibits employers from taking employment action based on the reproductive health decisions of an employee or potential employee. Hiring, firing, or refusing to hire an employee is conduct, not speech, and the law does not implicate Plaintiffs’ First-Amendment rights in that.

Anti-Abortion Protesters Lose Challenge To D.C.'s Defacement Ordinance

In Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. District of Columbia,  (DDC, March 26, 2021), the federal district court for the District of Columbia refused to enjoin enforcement of D.C.'s Defacement Ordinance against two groups that organized an anti-abortion demonstration. Protesters attempted to paint or chalk the streets with their slogan "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter." The court rejected plaintiffs' free speech, equal protection, RFRA and free exercise claims. Plaintiffs claim that the Ordinance is enforced in a viewpoint discriminatory manner in that "Black Lives Matter" and "Defund the Police" protesters were not prosecuted. The court said in part, however:

It seems far more plausible, rather, that law enforcement opted against enforcing the Ordinance [against Black Lives Matter protesters] in light of the foreseeable risks of intervention in the moment — e.g., inflaming what may well have already been a tense, fervent, and chaotic protest scene.

Supreme Court Will Decide If State AG Can Intervene To Defend Abortion Statute

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted review in Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., (Docket No. 20-601, certiorari granted 3/29/2021). (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the state attorney general to intervene to defend the constitutionality of a Kentucky statute which banned D&E abortions prior to fetal demise. EMW Women's Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Friedlander, 831 Fed. Appx. 748 (LEXIS link). The AG sought to intervene after the 6th Circuit held the statute unconstitutional and no state official would seek a rehearing or an appeal. The certiorari petition raises the issue of whether intervention should be allowed. Here is the SCOTUSblog's discussion of the grant of review and its case page on the case.

7th Circuit Enjoins Indiana's Parent Abortion Notification Statute

In Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Box, (7th Cir., March 12, 2021), in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision struggled with the meaning of the Supreme Court's recent fragmented opinion on abortion rights-- June Medical Services LLC v. Russo.  At issue is an Indiana statute which requires a minor's parents to be notified that their daughter is seeking to use the judicial bypass route to obtain an abortion.  The only exception, regardless of the minor's maturity, is a judicial finding that parental notice is not in the  minor's best interest. The court spent much of its opinion attempting to apply the test in Marks v. United States for how to make sense of a fragmented Supreme Court decision with no single majority opinion.  Affirming the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statute, the court said in part:

In June Medical, there is one critical sliver of common ground between the plurality and the concurrence: Whole Woman’s Health was entitled to stare decisis effect on essentially identical facts..... The Marks rule therefore applies to that common ground, but it applies only to that common ground. That application offers no direct guidance for applying the undue burden standard more generally, let alone to the quite different parental notice requirement in this case. That absence of guidance answers our question: the Marks rule tells us that June Medical did not overrule Whole Woman’s Health. That means Whole Woman’s Health remains precedent binding on lower courts.

Judge Kanne filed a dissenting opinion saying in part:

The plurality in June Medical held that the Louisiana law at issue was unconstitutional because it “poses a ‘substantial obstacle’ to women seeking an abortion [and] offers no significant health-related benefits.”... The Chief Justice’s concurrence, however, simply held only that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional because, under Whole Woman’s Health, it “imposed a substantial obstacle.” ...

Thus, the finding of a “substantial obstacle” is the common denominator between the opinions—and we should correct our previous decision by abandoning the added weighing of benefits that Chief Justice Roberts explicitly rejected.

Reporting on the decision, ABA Journal points out:

The decision puts the 7th Circuit at odds with the ... 8th Circuit at St. Louis and the 6th Circuit at Cincinnati.

[Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

Arkansas Enacts Law Banning Virtually All Abortions, Seeking Vehicle For Overturning Roe v. Wade

On Tuesday, Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson signed into law SB6, the Arkansas Unborn Child Protection Act (full text). The new law bans all abortions, except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.  A doctor who violates the law is subject to a fine of up to $100,000 and up to ten years in prison. Gov. Hutchinson's signing statement said in part:

I will sign SB6 because of overwhelming legislative support and my sincere and long-held pro-life convictions. SB6 is in contradiction of binding precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court, but it is the intent of the legislation to set the stage for the Supreme Court overturning current case law. I would have preferred the legislation to include the exceptions for rape and incest, which has been my consistent view, and such exceptions would increase the chances for a review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Satanic Temple Member Sues Over Texas Abortion Requirements

The Satanic Temple and one of its members filed suit last month in a Texas federal district court challenging Texas' requirement that a woman have a sonogram prior to an abortion.  The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Texas Department of State Health Services, (SD TX, filed 2/12/2021), alleges that the individual plaintiff wishes to engage in The Satanic Temple's Abortion Ritual, explaining:

46. TST developed the Satanic Abortion Ritual to help its membership cast off guilt, shame, and mental discomfort that the member may be experiencing in connection with their election to abort the pregnancy....

47. The Ritual also confirms the member’s choice and wards off effects of unjust persecution....

48. Here, the unjust persecution is an improper effort of the State (the “outside world”) to infringe on the decision-making of a member about her own health decision (the “inside world.”)...

102. Texas places barriers between Ms. Doe (and TST’s similarly situated members) and this religious speech and conduct by first requiring she undergo a medically unnecessary operation, requiring she reject the “opportunity” to see the results of the imaging, requiring she listen to the narrative of and results of the imaging, and requiring she wait.

Plaintiffs claim that the regulations violate their free exercise, substantive due process and equal protection rights. Christian Headlines reports on the lawsuit.

5th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments On Enjoining Health Care Anti-Discrimination Rule

 The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday heard oral arguments (audio of full arguments) in Franciscan Alliance v. Cochran. In the case, a Texas federal district court vacated and remanded for further consideration a rule issued by the Obama administration under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity or termination of pregnancy in health care programs that receive federal financial assistance. (See prior posting.) As reported by Courthouse News Service, the appeal heard yesterday focused on whether the district court should also have issued an injunction against future enforcement of the rule. The district court declined to do so because the Trump Administration agreed that the rule was invalid. The original plaintiffs argued that the rule would force them to perform gender transition surgery and abortions in violation of their religious beliefs.

Supreme Court Grants Review of Title X Rule Restricting Abortion Counseling

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari (Order List, 2/22/2021) in three related cases challenging a Final Rule promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services in March 2019. (See prior posting.) The rule imposes new restrictions on health care providers receiving Title X family planning funds.  As described in the AMA's petition for certiorari:

The Rule both prohibits and compels certain pregnancy-related speech between a Title X provider and her patient, proscribing abortion related information but requiring information about non-abortion options—regardless of what the patient wants. The Rule also imposes burdensome physical separation requirements on any Title X provider engaging in abortion-related activities outside the Title X program.

The cases (with links to their SCOTUSblog case pages) are American Medical Association v. Cochran (Docket No. 20-429),  Cochran v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (Docket No. 20-454), and Oregon v. Cochran (Docket No. 20-539). The Hill reports on the Court's action.