Cert. Denied In Abortion Protester's Case

Last Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in March v. Mills, (Docket No.17-689, cert. denied 4/16/2018) (Order List).  In the case, the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a provision of the Maine Civil Rights Act that prohibits a person making noise that can be heard within a health care facility where the intent is to jeopardize health or interfere with the delivery of health services.  The appeals court rejected a constitutional challenge brought by an abortion protester who is the pastor and co-founder of a church whose mission was described as including "plead[ing] for the lives of the unborn at the doorsteps of abortion facilities." (See prior posting.)  AP reported on the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

6th Circuit: Ohio's Cutoff of Non-Abortion Funding To Planned Parenthood Is Unconstitutional

In Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio, Inc. v. Himes, (6th Cir., April 18, 2018), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional a 2016 Ohio law aimed at Planned Parenthood.  ORC §3701.34 prohibits the Ohio Department of Health from channeling funds it receives through six non-abortion-related federal health programs to any entity that performs or promotes nontherapeutic abortions, or which is affiliated with any entity that performs or promotes such abortions.  The appeals court held that the district court correctly applied the unconstitutional conditions doctrine in enjoining enforcement of the law, saying that "the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine is not limited to First Amendment rights."  According to the court, the question posed in this case is

whether Ohio may require a provider to surrender the right to provide safe and lawful abortions on its own “time and dime” as a condition of participating in government programs that have nothing to do with abortion. 

The court concluded:

Although Ohio women do not have a right to the programs, they do have a right not to have their access to important health services curtailed because their major abortion providers opted to protect women’s abortion rights rather than yield to unconstitutional conditions. 

 The court also held that the law imposes unconstitutional conditions on speech by prohibiting funds from going to any entity that promotes abortion:

§3701.034 affects programs that have nothing to do with abortion or family planning, and seeks to impose restrictions on recipients’ speech outside the six government programs the statute funds.

Columbus Dispatch, reporting on the decision, pointed out that two of the three judges handing down the ruling were Republican appointees. It also reports that the state Attorney General's office is reviewing the decision to determine whether it should seek en banc review or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge and Scott Mange for the lead.]

Tax Objector's Strategy To Prevent Garnishment Does Not Constitute Tax Evasion

The Oregonian last week reported on a partial court victory by Christian tax objector Michael Bowman who for the last nearly 20 years has refused to file income tax returns unless some accommodation is made so none of his tax monies support abortion.  When in 2012 Oregon tax authorities began to garnish Bowman's bank account, he moved to keep only a small balance in his checking account by cashing his pay checks rather than depositing them.  This led federal authorities last year to charge him with felony counts of tax evasion.  However, last week an Oregon federal district court held that merely cashing pay checks, when his income was fully reported to the IRS, could not constitute tax evasion.  However Bowman still faces four federal misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file tax returns.

At Hearing Judicial Nominee Retreats From Prior Pro-Life Comments

Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the nomination of Wendy Vitter to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.  NPR reports on the hearing:

Wendy Vitter, nominated by President Trump for a federal judgeship, tried Wednesday to walk back several controversial comments she made about abortion and birth control.

Questioned by skeptical Democrats at her confirmation hearing, she maintained she could "put aside" her long-held "pro-life" advocacy, and as a judge enforce the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision on abortion rights.

In particular, Vitter sought to distance herself from a brochure she had appeared to endorse while leading a panel at a pro-life conference in 2013. The panel was called "Abortion Hurts Women," and the brochure promoted a variety of unsubstantiated claims linking birth control pills to breast cancer, cervical and liver cancers, and "violent death."

Indiana Homicide Law Expanded To Cover Non-Abortion Killing of Fetus At Any Stage

On March 25, Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed Senate Bill 203 (full text).  The new law expands the state's murder and manslaughter laws to include killing of a fetus "at any stage of development".  Prior law covered only killing of a fetus that has attained viability.  The law does not apply to a lawfully performed abortion or to a pregnant woman who terminates her own pregnancy or kills a fetus she is carrying. Liberty Counsel issued a press release on the new law.

Ireland Referendum Set on Constitutional Amendment Allowing Abortion

On Wednesday, Ireland's Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government announced that he had set May 25 as the date for a referendum on a proposed amendment to Ireland's Constitution.  The amendment (full text) will allow Ireland's Parliament (Oireachtis) to enact laws permitting abortion.  Currently Ireland's Constitution (Art. 40, Sec. 3, Subsection 3) guarantees the "right to life of the unborn" (with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother). CNN reports on developments. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Pro-Life Supporters Model Protest After Parkland School Walkouts

The pro-life movement has announced plans to piggyback on the student anti-gun violence walkouts that took place in schools around the country after the Parkland, Florida shooting.  Pro-life high school students are planning a similar 17-minute walkout from classes on April 11. As reported by Lifesite News, the idea originated with Rocklin, California high school student Brandon Gillespie after his history teacher was suspended for questioning the anti-gun violence walkout and commenting that the walkout would likely not have been tolerated if it was to protest abortion.  Sponsors of the pro-life march have tied it to the Parkland demonstrations by saying it will "test if there’s a double standard from school administration when it comes to allowing students to protest against destroyers of life and the tools they use."  Yesterday the Thomas More Law Center issued a press release stating that it will provide legal guidance to students planning the walkout, adding:

With the pro-life walk out, Gillespie seeks to answer the question of whether “Not One More” applies to all children, regardless of their age or birth status.

Abortion Protester Cleared of Disorderly Conduct Charge

A trial court judge in Huntsville, Alabama last week found 66-year old Alison Harris not guilty of disorderly conduct. (Docket sheet).  According to a press release from the Thomas More Society:

Harris, a frequent sidewalk counselor at the Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives, was arrested on May 26, 2017, on the public walkway in front of the abortion clinic as she prayed and tried to persuade parents to choose life for their preborn children. The arresting officer had obtained a warrant at the request of a clinic employee for Harris’ use of a megaphone fourteen days earlier. The megaphone had been repeatedly tested by city police to ensure that it was below the decibel limit allowed by the Huntsville City ordinance.

Megaphones are used by sidewalk counselors at the Huntsville abortion clinic, where, alongside a four-lane highway, abortion escorts use cow bells, car horns, and loud-speakers to drown out the pro-life messages.

Transcript Of Supreme Court Arguments In California FACT Act Case Is Now Available

The full transcript of today' oral arguments (see prior posting) in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra is now available. Reporting on the arguments, Politico said in part:

A surprisingly broad array of justices expressed serious concerns that the Reproductive FACT Act intrudes on First Amendment rights, by requiring such centers to include in their ads a state-provided notice in as many as 13 languages offering contact information about abortion services and other options.

Mississippi Governor Signs Ban on Abortions After 15 Weeks; Court Challenge Filed

Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant yesterday signed into law HB 1510, the Gestational Age Act (full text) (bill status history). It prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of gestation except in the case of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. Violations of the ban are defined as unprofessional conduct by a physician and may lead to suspension or revocation of the person's license to practice medicine. New York Times reports that the only abortion clinic in Mississippi quickly filed a complaint (full text) (press release) in Mississippi federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the law.

UPDATE: On March 20, a Mississippi federal district court granted a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the new law. (AP)

Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments Today In California FACT Act Challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. In the case, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld  California's FACT Act which requires licensed pregnancy counseling clinics to disseminate a notice on the existence of publicly-funded family planning services, including contraception and abortion.  Unlicensed clinics must disseminate a notice that they and their personnel are unlicensed. (See prior posting.) The Supreme Court granted certiorari only on the free speech issues in the case, excluding review of the free exercise question. (See prior posting.)  SCOTUSblog's case page has links to all the briefs filed in the case, as well as to further analysis.

Ohio's Law Banning Abortion Because of Down's Syndrome Is Enjoined

In Preterm-Cleveland v. Himes, (SD OH, March 14, 2018), an Ohio federal district court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Ohio's recently enacted ban on a physician performing an abortion if the woman's decision is based in whole or part on a pre-natal indication of Down's syndrome.The court said in part:

The State argues that Roe and Casey do not apply for two reasons. First, the State argues the “Supreme Court of the United States has never recognized a right to abort an unborn child on the basis of a disability.” ... The State suggests that Roe and Casey only apply to women who accidentally become pregnant.... The State argues that women only have the right to choose whether to have a child, not the right to decide whether to have a particular child....

This argument is not well-taken. The interest protected by the Due Process Clause is a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy pre-viability, and that right is categorical.

Reacting to the decision, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said:

 I strongly disagree with the district court's ruling that there is a categorical right to abortion that prevents even any consideration of Ohio's profound interests in combatting discrimination against a class of human beings based upon disability. We will be appealing.

Jurist reports on the decision.

Church's Suit Challenging California Health Insurance Rules Dismissed As Not Ripe

In Skyline Wesleyan Church v. California Department of Managed Health Care, (SD CA, March 9, 2018), a California federal district court dismissed on ripeness and standing grounds a suit by a church challenging California insurance rules on the coverage of abortion services by health policies.  The church objected to providing its employees with policies that covered abortions.  Initially state regulators required all policies to contain such coverage, but subsequently said they would grant exemptions for policies offered exclusively to religious employers.  The court said in part:

At this point in time it cannot be said that the DMHC would deny a health care plan’s request to offer the exemption sought by Plaintiff because no such plan has been submitted. Thus, the existence of a controversy depends on a factual scenario that may or may not materialize, making this case unfit for review.

Missouri Abortion Restriction Challenged In New Suit By Satanic Temple Member

A suit filed last week in a Missouri federal district court by a member of The Satanic Temple challenges Missouri's restrictions on abortion as a violation of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The complaint (full text) in Doe v. Greitens, (ED MO,filed 2/28/2018), focuses on the requirements in Missouri law that a woman seeking an abortion be furnished a booklet that states in part that life begins at conception and an abortion will terminate the life of a living human being. It also challenges Missouri's 72-hour waiting period and the requirement that the woman be given the opportunity to view an active ultrasound.  The complaint says that plaintiff does not believe that life begins at conception and holds the religious belief that she alone can decide whether to remove human tissue from her body, according to the best scientific understanding of the world.

As previously reported, the Missouri Supreme Court in January heard oral arguments in a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge by The Satanic Temple to the same abortion restrictions.  As reported by Friendly Atheist blog, one of the purposes of the new lawsuit is to undercut a mootness argument in the Missouri Supreme Court.  The lower court dismissed the lawsuit because the plaintiff was no longer pregnant.  The new suit is presumably intended to show that this challenge is one that is  within the exception for controversies that are capable of repetition but evade review.

Missouri Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Satanic Temple Believer's Challenge To Abortion Law [UPDATED]

As reported by the Washington Post, the Missouri Supreme Court yesterday heard oral arguments in Doe v. Nixon,  a case brought by a woman who is a member of the Satanic Temple, challenging Missouri's restrictions on abortion. (See prior related posting.) Missouri's requires that abortion providers give patients a pamphlet that states :"The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being." Plaintiff contends that this violates her rights under the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. As reported by the Post:

[T]he Satanic Temple has a set of tenets that stipulate that a woman’s body “is inviolable and subject to her will alone”; that “she makes decisions regarding her health based on the best scientific understanding of the world, even if the science does not comport with the religious or political beliefs of others”; and that “human tissue,” — how the complaint defines a pregnancy dating to its conception — is part of her body that “she alone” can decide whether to remove.

UPDATE: A recording of the full oral arguments is now available online. According to a press release from the Satanic Temple:

D. John Sauer, Missouri’s Solicitor General announced to the State’s Supreme Court that ultrasounds are not mandatory to obtain an abortion. This information no doubt comes as a surprise to Missouri’s abortion providers who regularly perform ultrasounds they have perceived as mandated by the State. The issue arose during oral arguments in The Satanic Temple’s (TST) lawsuit, which asserts that State interference with the ability for a member of TST ... to terminate her pregnancy violates her rights under Missouri’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because that interference has no medical or other compelling purpose.... 

... In an audio recording of the arguments published by the court, Justices of the court asked the State’s representative if, “it’s the position of the State that an ultrasound does not have to be conducted unless a person says they want the opportunity to hear the fetal heartbeat.” (13:16) Mr. Sauer affirms that the State’s interpretation of statute (MO Rev Stat § 188.027) is that women only be offered the “opportunity,” to have an ultrasound and listen to the fetal heartbeat, and if a woman declines hearing the audio, the ultrasound need not be performed and the requirement has been satisfied (15:20).

Trump Administration Takes Several Actions Supporting Pro-Life Advocates

As reported by CNN, today was the 45th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C.  Both Vice-President Pence and President Trump addressed the marchers via video feed from the White House Rose Garden. (Video of remarks.) Today, President Trump also issued a Proclamation (full text) declaring January 22 as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. The White House additionally issued a Fact Sheet titled President Donald J. Trump is Standing Up for the Sanctity of Life.

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services also announced two pro-life initiatives. The HHS Office for Civil Rights issued a 216-page release (full text) proposing revisions in in order to expand enforcement authority as to rules that protect conscience objections in delivery of health care services. Second, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a Letter to State Medicaid Directors (full text) rescinding SMD #16-005, a 2016 letter to Medicaid.  That letter which today's action rescinded provided in part:

... [S]tates may not deny qualification to family planning providers, or take other action against qualified family planning providers, that affects beneficiary access to those providers—whether individual providers, physician groups, outpatient clinics or hospitals—solely because they separately provide family planning services or the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care, including abortion services (not funded by federal Medicaid dollars, consistent with the federal prohibition), as part of their scope of practice.

Trump Administration Is Planning Expanded Religious and Moral Exemptions For Doctors

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the Trump Administration is planning to expand exemptions from health care anti-discrimination rules for doctors who have religious or moral objections to gender transitioning or abortion.  The Department of Health and Human Services also plans to create  a division of "conscience and religious freedom protections" in the Department's Office for Civil Rights.  HHS sent its rule proposals to the White House for review last Friday.  President Trump might announce the changes on Friday when he addresses the March for Life on the National Mall by satellite. [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]

UPDATE: On Jan. 18, the Department of Health and Human Services formally announced formation of a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in its Office for Civil Rights.

Suit Challenges Canada's Denial of Grants to Pro-Life Group

In Canada last week, a pro-life group filed suit in Federal Court in Alberta challenging new rules that bar it from receiving grants under the Canada Summer Jobs Program.  According to Life Site News report on the lawsuit, Canada Summer Jobs provides grants to non-profit groups, small businesses, and public sector employers in order to create jobs for students between 15 an 30 years old.  The complaint (full text) in Right to Life Association of Toronto and Area v. Canada (Minister of Employment, Workforce and Labour), (Fed. Ct., filed 1/4/2018), contends that the grant restrictions infringe plaintiffs' freedom of religion, conscience and belief, as well as their equal protection rights, under Sections 2(a)-(b) and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Last December, Canada's Employment Ministry added a requirement that in order to receive a grant under the program, an organization had to attest to the following:

Both the job and the organization's core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights.  These include reproductive rights, and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.

6th Circuit: Tennessee Constitutional Amendment On Abortion Was Validly Adopted

In George v. Hargett, (6th Cir., Jan. 9, 2018), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge by Tennessee voters to the method by which votes were counted in 2014 on a state constitutional amendment.  At issue was an amendment that provides in part: "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion."  Language in the Tennessee constitution on the number of votes needed to approve a constitutional amendment is ambiguous.  However a state court had upheld the interpretation by state voting officials.  The 6th Circuit, reversing the district court, upheld the state's determination that the amendment had passed. It also concluded that the vote counting method used by the state does not violated due process or equal protection provisions of the federal Constitution.  The Tennessean reports on the decision. [Thanks to Tom Rutledge for the lead.]

4th Circuit Strikes Down Baltimore's Posting Requirement For Pregnancy Centers

In Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, Inc., v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, (4th Cir., Jan. 5, 2018), the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional a Baltimore ordinance requiring any "limited service pregnancy center" to post a notice in its waiting room telling clients that it "does not provide or make referral for abortion or birth-control services."  Finding that the speech being regulated is neither commercial speech nor professional speech, the Court held that the ordinance violates plaintiffs' 1st Amendment rights.  The Court said in part:

The dangers of compelled speech in an area as ideologically sensitive and spiritually fraught as this one require that the government not overplay its hand. Without proving the inefficacy of less restrictive alternatives, providing concrete evidence of deception, or more precisely targeting its regulation, the City cannot prevail. The Baltimore ordinance, as applied to the Center, fails to satisfy heightened First Amendment scrutiny.

...This court has in the past struck down attempts to compel speech from abortion providers.... And today we do the same with regard to compelling speech from abortion foes. We do so in belief that earnest advocates on all sides of this issue should not be forced by the state into a corner and required essentially to renounce and forswear what they have come as a matter of deepest conviction to believe.

This is the second time that the case has made it to the 4th Circuit. (See prior posting.) The Baltimore Sun reports on the decision.