South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Act Enjoined

As previously reported, earlier this week (Feb. 18), South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed into law the Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act, prohibiting an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected. One day later, in Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Wilson, (D SC, Feb. 19, 2021), a South Carolina federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the Act, saying in part:

Because the Act bans abortion months before any fetus could be viable, ... Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the Act is unconstitutional. Indeed, courts have “universally” invalidated laws that ban abortions beginning at a gestational age prior to viability.

CNN reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

South Dakota and South Carolina Pass New Abortion Provisions

This week the South Dakota legislature gave final passage, and sent to the Governor Noem for her signature, HB 1051 (full text) modifying the state's abortion laws. The bill further spells out the right in existing state law for a child born alive after an attempted abortion to have medical care.  The new bill defines "born alive". It also gives a mother as well as the child a cause of action for damages for the physician's negligence in attempting to perform the abortion. Finally it imposes additional reporting requirements on physicians and facilities performing abortions. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the passage of the bill.

Meanwhile, as reported by The State, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster yesterday signed into law S.1, the Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act, prohibiting an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

No Injunction Against Sound Ordinance Because City Disclaims Enforcement Pending Revision

In Abolish Abortion Oregon v. City of Grants Pass, (D OR, Feb. 12, 2021), an Oregon federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the city's Sound Ordinance sought by an organization of Christian evangelists and anti-abortion advocates. Plaintiffs contended that enforcement violates their free speech and free exercise rights. The city, however, has conceded that the current Sound Ordinance is probably unconstitutional and says it is revising the Ordinance. It has also said it will not enforce the Ordinance during the revision process.

11th Circuit: Anti-Abortion Protesters Challenge To Permit Requirements Rejected

In Henderson v. McMurray, (11th Cir., Feb. 9, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed free speech, free exercise and due process challenges to Huntsville, Alabama's application of its permit requirements to activities of James and Carol Henderson, two anti-abortion protesters. When abortion rights counter-protesters drowned out the sidewalk counseling and prayers of the Hendersons, the Hendersons resorted to using amplification devices. This triggered the need for them to obtain a permit under Huntsville's municipal code. In dismissing the Hendersons' various challenges, the court concluded that they failed to plead facts showing that they did not have ample alternative channels of communication or that the limits on noise in their permit were a pretext for viewpoint discrimination. The court also held that the noise limits in the permit were not unconstitutionally vague and that the free exercise claim does not trigger strict scrutiny.

Biden Moves To Restore Funding For Family Planning Clinics; Reverses Mexico City Policy

President Biden yesterday issued Memorandum on Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad (Jan. 28. 2021) (full text).  The Memorandum calls for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to consider whether to revise or repeal the Trump Administration's rules that prohibit recipients of Title X funds from referring patients to abortion providers. The rule has had a particular impact on Planned Parenthood clinics. (See prior posting.) Yesterday's Memorandum states in part:

The Title X Rule has caused the termination of Federal family planning funding for many women’s healthcare providers and puts women’s health at risk by making it harder for women to receive complete medical information.

The Memorandum also revokes the so-called "Mexico City Policy" which withholds USAID family planning funds abroad from organizations that use non-USAID funds to perform abortions, provide advice, counseling, or information on abortion, or lobby a foreign government to legalize abortion or make abortion services more easily available. The Memorandum also directs the Secretaries of State and HHS to withdraw the U.S. from the Geneva Consensus Declaration, and to resume funding to the United Nations Population Fund. CBS News has more on these developments.

Supreme Court Dismisses and Vacates Judgment Below In Temporary Texas Abortion Ban Controversy

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott, (Docket No. 20-305, Jan. 25, 2021) (Order List), summarily vacated the judgment below and remanded the case to the 5th Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. The case began as a challenge to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's order temporarily barring most elective abortions during the COVID-19 crisis. Subsequently the Governor permitted abortion services to resume. At issue in the case now was whether the Supreme Court would vacate the Court of Appeals judgments below so that they would no longer serve as precedent in other cases. (See petition for certiorari.) The SCOTUSblog case page has links to all the pleadings in the case.

Biden-Harris Statement on Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

 This morning the White House issued a Statement from President Biden and Vice President Harris on the 48th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade (full text) which reads:

Today marks the 48th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade.  

In the past four years, reproductive health, including the right to choose, has been under relentless and extreme attack.  We are deeply committed to making sure everyone has access to care – including reproductive health care – regardless of income, race, zip code, health insurance status, or immigration status. 

The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to codifying Roe v. Wade and appointing judges that respect foundational precedents like Roe.  We are also committed to ensuring that we work to eliminate maternal and infant health disparities, increase access to contraception, and support families economically so that all parents can raise their families with dignity.  This commitment extends to our critical work on health outcomes around the world. 

As the Biden-Harris Administration begins in this critical moment, now is the time to rededicate ourselves to ensuring that all individuals have access to the health care they need.

U.S. Catholic Bishops Call For Biden To Change His Policies On Abortion Rights

The head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop José H. Gomez, released a lengthy statement (full text) on Wednesday as Joe Biden was inaugurated as U.S. President. The statement particularly focuses on Biden's stance on abortion, saying in part:

I look forward to working with President Biden and his administration, and the new Congress....

Working with President Biden will be unique, however, as he is our first president in 60 years to profess the Catholic faith.... [I]t will be refreshing to engage with a President who clearly understands, in a deep and personal way, the importance of religious faith and institutions. Mr. Biden’s piety and personal story, his moving witness to how his faith has brought him solace in times of darkness and tragedy, his longstanding commitment to the Gospel’s priority for the poor — all of this I find hopeful and inspiring.

At the same time, as pastors, the nation’s bishops are given the duty of proclaiming the Gospel in all its truth and power, in season and out of season, even when that teaching is inconvenient or when the Gospel’s truths run contrary to the directions of the wider society and culture. So, I must point out that our new President has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences....

For the nation’s bishops, the continued injustice of abortion remains the “preeminent priority.”...

Rather than impose further expansions of abortion and contraception, as he has promised, I am hopeful that the new President and his administration will work with the Church and others of good will.... My hope is that we can begin a dialogue to address the complicated cultural and economic factors that are driving abortion and discouraging families.

5th Circuit En Banc Hears Oral Arguments On Texas Abortion Restrictions

Yesterday the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sitting en banc heard oral arguments in Whole Women's Health v. Paxton. (Audio of full oral arguments). The full court is rehearing the case after a 3-judge panel last October by a 2-1 vote (full text of panel majority decision) held unconstitutional a Texas statute that requires women to undergo a medically unnecessary procedure to cause fetal demise before obtaining a dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortion. Courthouse News Service reports on the oral arguments.

President Trump Declares Jan. 22 As National Sanctity of Human Life Day

Yesterday, President Donald Trump issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring January 22, 2021 as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. The Proclamation reads in part:

Every human life is a gift to the world.  Whether born or unborn, young or old, healthy or sick, every person is made in the holy image of God.  The Almighty Creator gives unique talents, beautiful dreams, and a great purpose to every person.  On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, we celebrate the wonder of human existence and renew our resolve to build a culture of life where every person of every age is protected, valued, and cherished.

This month, we mark nearly 50 years since the United States Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.  This constitutionally flawed ruling overturned State laws that banned abortion, and has resulted in the loss of more than 50 million innocent lives....

The United States is a shining example of human rights for the world.  However, some in Washington are fighting to keep the United States among a small handful of nations — including North Korea and China — that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks.  I join with countless others who believe this is morally and fundamentally wrong, and today, I renew my call on the Congress to pass legislation prohibiting late-term abortion....

Supreme Court Allows Enforcement of FDA Rule On Medical Abortions While Appeals Are Pending

The U.S. Supreme Court in Food & Drug Administration v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, (US Sup. Ct., Jan 12, 2021), stayed a Maryland federal district court's injunction pending appeal of an FDA rule on access to medical abortions. The FDA requires mifepristone, one of two drugs necessary for a medical abortion, to be picked up in person by the patient at a hospital, clinic or medical office.  The district court had continued to enjoin that requirement during the COVID epidemic, even though in October the Supreme Court had sent the case back for further consideration by the district court.  Now, in a case on its so-called "shadow docket" (cases seeking emergency relief without full oral argument) the Supreme Court in an unsigned opinion has granted a stay of the injunction pending disposition of appeals in the 4th Circuit and Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Roberts filed a brief concurring opinion, stating in part:

The question before us is not whether the requirements for dispensing mifepristone impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion as a general matter. The question is instead whether the District Court properly ordered the Food and Drug Administration to lift those established requirements because of the court’s own evaluation of the impact of the COVID–19 pandemic. Here as in related contexts concerning government responses to the pandemic, my view is that courts owe significant deference to the politically accountable entities with the “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.”

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Due to particularly severe health risks, vastly limited clinic options, and the 10-week window for obtaining a medication abortion, the FDA’s requirement that women obtain mifepristone in person during the COVID–19 pandemic places an unnecessary and undue burden on their right to abortion....

What rejoinder does the Government have to the possibility that refusing to suspend the FDA’s in-person requirements for mifepristone during the COVID–19 pandemic will cause some women to miss the 10-week window altogether? No cause for concern, the Government assures this Court, because even if the FDA’s in-person requirements cause women to lose the opportunity for a medication abortion, they can still seek out a surgical abortion. What a callous response.

Justice Breyer dissented without filing or joining an opinion.  SCOTUSblog has further coverage of the decision.

Supreme Court Denies Review In Clinic Buffer Zone Case

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied review in Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, (Docket No. 19-1184, certiorari denied 1/11/2021). (Order List [scroll to pg. 25]). In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Pittsburgh ordinance that creates a 15-foot buffer zone outside any health care facility, including a Planned Parenthood clinic. Congregating, patrolling, picketing and demonstrating in such areas are banned. (See prior posting.) Justice Thomas added a statement to his vote to deny review, saying that in an appropriate case the Court should re-examine whether intermediate scrutiny is the correct test in buffer zone cases. ADF issued a press release on the denial of certiorari.

Argentina Legislature Votes To Legalize Early Term Abortion

As reported by NPR, Argentina's Senate yesterday voted 38-29 (with one abstention) to approve the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Bill which allows abortions during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. The Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of  Argentina's Congress, approved the bill on Dec. 11 by a vote of 131-117 (with 6 abstentions). Argentine President Alberto Fernández says he will sign the bill. Last month, Pope Francis wrote opponents of the bill expressing his opposition to the legislation. (ABC News).

Indiana Fetal Tissue Disposition Law Challenged Again

Suit was filed last week in an Indiana federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's statutes that require healthcare facilities to dispose of embryonic and fetal tissue from abortions and miscarriages by burial or cremation, regardless of patients’ wishes. The complaint (full text) in Jane Doe No. 1. v. Attorney General of Indiana, (SD IN, filed 12/21/2020), alleges in part:

The Tissue Disposition Laws violate fundamental tenets of the First and Fourteenth Amendments by compelling abortion and miscarriage patients—and their healthcare providers— to act in accordance with the State’s view of personhood—namely, that an embryo is the ontological and spiritual equivalent of a person—regardless of their own opinions about the status of developing human life. Indiana’s effort to create orthodoxy on a deeply polarizing issue that implicates the most profound aspects of religion, culture, and ideology is constitutionally prohibited.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 (without hearing oral argument) upheld the Indiana tissue disposition laws in a case which did not raise the constitutional challenges put forward in this complaint. (See prior posting.) Christian Headlines reports on last week's filing.

DOJ Sues Vermont Hospital For Violating Church Amendments

The Justice Department announced this week that it filed suit in a Vermont federal district court against the University of Vermont Medical Center for violating the Church Amendments that protect medical workers from being required to assist with abortions in violation of their religious or moral convictions. The complaint (full text) in United States v. University of Vermont Medical Center, (D VT, filed 12/16/2020) alleges in part:

Defendant has scheduled conscience objectors, including nurses, to assist with elective abortions despite specific and repeated requests from those personnel not to be assigned to elective abortions because of their religious beliefs or moral convictions. Moreover, Defendant has repeatedly assigned conscience objectors to participate in elective abortions without giving advance notice of the nature of the procedure.

VP Pence Hosts Pro-Life Event At White House Complex

Yesterday, Vice President Mike Pence hosted a "Life is Winning Event" in the Executive Office Building at which more than 20 anti-abortion organizations were represented. (Video of the event.) The event included 15 minutes of remarks from the Vice President (full text of remarks) in which he said in part:

... I truly do believe if all of us continue to do all that we can in the months and the years ahead, we will see the sanctity of life restored to the center of American law in our time....

I know what all of you know as well: that he who said “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you” is about life. And we do well in this movement to always remind ourselves that when we make the cause for life our cause, we make His work on this Earth our very own.

So do not grow weary in doing well, because in the last four years, we’ve shown when men and women of faith and conviction come together to stand up for the unborn, to speak out for the voiceless, life can win in America. And with your help and God’s help, life will keep on winning in the United States of America.

Court Continues Injunction Allowing Medical Abortion Drug To Be Dispensed In Pharmacy Or By Mail

 In American College of  Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, (D MD, Dec. 9, 2020), a Maryland federal district court refused to stay its earlier preliminary injunction against enforcement during the COVID emergency of an FDA rule that prevents mifepristone, an oral medication used to induce abortion, from being received by mail or through a pharmacy. The rule mandates it be dispensed only in person at a clinic or doctor's office. The court said in part:

As the parties continue their ongoing dispute over the validity of the Preliminary Injunction and whether it should presently remain in effect, the Court notes that it is not open-ended. The Preliminary Injunction is slated to end 30 days after the end of the public health emergency declared by the Secretary. With the positive news relating to vaccines, there is reason to hope that day will come soon. At this time, however, as the entire nation goes through what the Coordinator of the White House Coronavirus Task Force has deemed the "most deadly phase of the pandemic,"... the Court concludes that Defendants have not identified changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a stay or dissolution of the Preliminary Injunction, in whole or in part.

Washington Post reports on the decision.

Sign Ordinance Invoked Against Abortion Protesters Is Unconstiutional

In Baker v. City of Fort Worth, (ND TX, Dec. 8, 2020), a Texas federal district court held that Fort Worth's sign ordinance is facially unconstitutional as a content-based prior restraint on speech.  The suit was brought by two plaintiffs who were cited for placing 18-inch crosses on a public right-of-way in front of an abortion clinic. The city ordinances require city council approval in order to display signs on public property, except for political signs at election polling locations.

10th Circuit Allows Enforcement of Disturbing-the-Peace Law Against Abortion Protesters

In Harmon v. City of Norman, (10th Cir., Dec. 7, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court's refusal to enjoin during the pendency of litigation the use of Norman, Oklahoma's disturbing-the-peace ordinance against anti-abortion protesters. The court held that the ordinance is a neutral and narrowly-tailored time, place and manner regulation that does not violate the 1st Amendment. The court also rejected vagueness and overbreadth claims.

5th Circuit En Banc Holds Medicaid Patients Cannot Challenge Planned Parenthood Defunding

In a procedurally complex holding, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc in Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventive Health Services, Inc. v. Kauffman, (5th Cir., Nov. 23, 2020), vacated a preliminary injunction that had prevented Texas from terminating its Medicaid contracts with Planned Parenthood. Eleven of the 16 judges joined the majority opinion in full.  Three others joined it in part. Two dissented. The termination was prompted by a controversial video from a pro-life organization involving procurement of fetal tissue for research. In vacating the injunction, the majority said in part:

[T]he district court grant[ed] the Providers and Individual Plaintiffs’ [who were Medicaid patients] motion for a preliminary injunction and prohibit[ed] the termination of the Providers’ Medicaid provider agreements. The district court held that § 1396a(a)(23) granted rights to the Individual Plaintiffs upon which a § 1983 action challenging the OIG’s termination decision could be based. The district court concluded ... [that] the OIG “did not have prima facie . . . evidence, or even a scintilla of evidence, to conclude the bases of termination set forth in the Final Notice merited finding the . . . Providers were not qualified.” This appeal ensued.

A three-judge panel of this court held ... that the Individual Plaintiffs [Medicaid patients] could maintain a § 1983 suit.... We granted en banc review.

The preliminary injunction issued by the district court was based solely on the claims of the Individual Plaintiffs. The district court did not consider whether the Providers were entitled to a preliminary injunction. The question before us is whether the Individual Plaintiffs may bring a § 1983 suit to contest the State’s determination that the Providers were not “qualified” providers.... We hold that they may not. We accordingly vacate the preliminary injunction.

Because the district court did consider the Providers’ claims, no aspect of those claims is before us in this interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we do not reach an issue addressed by JUDGE HIGGINSON’s opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which is whether the Medicaid agreements of entities affiliated with PP Gulf Coast were properly terminated.

UPDATE: Law & Crime reports on the decision.