Supreme Court Grants Review of FDA's Rules on Prescribing and Distributing Abortion Pill

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in two related cases, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Docket No. 23-235, cert. granted 12/13/2023) and Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, (Docket No. 23-236, cert. granted, 12/13/2023). (Order List.) (SCOTUSblog case pages 23-235, 23-236) In the single opinion applying to both cases, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld portions of a Texas federal district court's orders that stayed actions taken by the FDA in 2016 and 2021 regarding the administration and distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. The 2016 action increased the gestational age when the drug can be used and lightened certain other dosage and prescribing restrictions. In 2021, in connection with the Covid epidemic, the FDA removed the in-person prescribing requirement for mifepristone, allowing it to be sent by mail. The court found that doctors have standing to challenge these actions, among other things citing conscience injuries to objecting doctors.  Challenges to two other FDA actions on mifepristone were rejected on standing and statute of limitations grounds. (See prior posting.) 

The Supreme Court denied review in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, (Docket No. 23-395, cert. denied, 12/13/2023) which sought review of the FDA's original approval of mifepristone in 2000. (SCOTUSblog case page.)

The district court's orders are not currently in effect because in April, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the orders while appeals work their way through the courts. (See prior posting.) 

SCOTUSblog reports on the Supreme Court's grants of review.

Texas Supreme Court Reverses Trial Court Order That Allowed an Abortion

 In In re State of Texas, (TX Sup. Ct., Dec. 11, 2023), the Texas Supreme Court directed a trial court to vacate a temporary restraining order that it issued on Dec. 7. The trial court's order (see prior posting) allowed plaintiff Kate Cox who is carrying a fetus diagnosed with a fatal chromosomal condition to obtain an abortion. The Supreme Court said in part:

In this case, the pleadings state that Ms. Cox’s doctor—Dr. Damla Karsan—believes Ms. Cox qualifies for an abortion based on the medical-necessity exception. But when she sued seeking a court’s pre-authorization, Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a “life-threatening physical condition” or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires.... 

A woman who meets the medical-necessity exception need not seek a court order to obtain an abortion. Under the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function. The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient....

Dr. Karsan asserted that she has a “good faith belief” that Ms. Cox meets the exception’s requirements. Certainly, a doctor cannot exercise “reasonable medical judgment” if she does not hold her judgment in good faith. But the statute requires that judgment be a “reasonable medical” judgment, and Dr. Karsan has not asserted that her “good faith belief” about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard. Judges do not have the authority to expand the statutory exception to reach abortions that do not fall within its text under the guise of interpreting it.

Meanwhile, the Center for Reproductive Rights announced that Ms. Cox has left Texas in order to get health care elsewhere. CNN reports on the Texas Supreme Court's decision.

4th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Planned Parenthood Funding Cutoff

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. Kerr.  The case, which is on remand from the Supreme Court, involves South Carolina's appeal of an injunction that bars it from terminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. (See prior posting.) ADF has further background on the case.

Texas Court Issues TRO Permitting an Abortion; Texas AG Responds

 A Texas state trial court yesterday issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the Texas Attorney General and the state Medical Board from enforcing Texas' abortion ban against plaintiff physician and her staff for performing a D&E abortion for plaintiff Kate Cox who is carrying a fetus diagnosed with a chromosomal condition that will result in its death before birth or at most in a few days after birth. The court in Cox v. State of Texas, (TX Dist. Ct., Dec. 7, 2023), said in part:

The longer Ms. Cox stays pregnant, the greater the risks to her life. Ms. Cox has already been to three emergency rooms with severe cramping, diarrhea, and leaking unidentifiable fluid.... If she is forced to carry this pregnancy to term, she will likely need a third C-section ... [which would] make it less likely that Ms. Cox would be able to carry another child in the future.

Dr. Karsan has met Ms. Cox, reviewed her medical records, and believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment, that a D&E abortion is medically recommended for Ms. Cox and that the medical exception to Texas' abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox's circumstances. Dr. Karsan, however, cannot risk liability under Texas's abortion bans and laws for providing Ms. Cox's abortion absent intervention from the Court confirming that doing so will not jeopardize Dr. Karsan's medical license, finances and personal liberty.

Responding to the decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a press release:

The Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) granted by the Travis County district judge purporting to allow an abortion to proceed will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws. This includes first degree felony prosecutions.... and civil penalties of not less than $100,000 for each violation.... And, while the TRO purports to temporarily enjoin actions brought by the OAG and TMB against Dr. Karsan and her staff, it does not enjoin actions brought by private citizens.... Nor does it prohibit a district or county attorney from enforcing Texas’ pre-Roe abortion laws against Dr. Karsan or anyone else. The TRO will expire long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.

He also sent a letter (full text) to three hospitals-- which were not parties to the case-- warning that they may be liable for negligently credentialing the physician and failing to exercise appropriate medical judgment if they permit the abortion to be performed in their facility.  Austin-American Statesman reports on the decision.

UPDATE: On Dec. 8, the Texas Supreme Court administratively stayed the trial court's order while it considers the case on appeal.

Appeals Court Hears Religious Challenges to Indiana Abortion Restrictions

On Wednesday, the Indiana Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana et al. v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1. (Video of full oral arguments.) In the case, an Indiana state trial court preliminarily enjoined the state from enforcing Indiana's law restricting abortions against plaintiffs whose religious beliefs permit or require abortions in situations not allowed under Indiana law. (See prior posting.) The trial court also certified the case as a class action. (See prior posting.) Indy Star reports on the oral arguments.

Court Disqualifies Proposed Nevada Reproductive Freedom Amendment From 2024 Ballot

In Washington v. Aguilar, (NV Dist. Ct., Nov. 21, 2023), a Nevada state trial court held that an Initiative Petition proposing a Reproductive Freedom Constitutional Amendment could not be placed on the 2024 ballot. The court held that the initiative proposal violates the single subject rule, contains a misleading description of the Amendment's effect and contains an unfunded mandate.  The court said in part:

This Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the Petition embraces a multitude of subjects that amount to logrolling. Subsection 1, alone, embraces the following subjects: prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion care, management of a miscarriage, and infertility care. Subsection 1 purportedly creates a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” but there is no limiting language in that section to circumscribe that right such that the section embraces a single and articulable subject....

The court found the description of the Amendment misleading because "it fails to mention that the law will bar the State from prosecuting, fining, or regulating any miscarriage or stillbirth"; it fails to mention that a medical provider can order a late term abortion to protect the pregnant person's health.; and it fails to explain that it affects equality and equal protection.

Finally, the court found that the proposed Amendment creates an unfunded mandate because a Panel or Board would need to be created to determine whether a healthcare provider acted within the standard of care.

Nevada Independent reports on the decision.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Temporarily Enjoins 3 Laws Restricting Abortions

In Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond, (OK Sup. Ct, Nov. 14, 2023), the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision directed the trial court to issue a temporary injunction preventing enforcement of three statutes that impose regulatory requirements on abortions while challenges to the laws proceed. The court's majority opinion says in part:

[In Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond I] we held that the Oklahoma Constitution protects a limited right to an abortion, i.e., one that creates an inherent right of the mother to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life.... This ... was defined to mean: 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.... We made no ruling on whether the Oklahoma Constitution provides a right to an elective termination of a pregnancy....

H.B. 1904 provides a new requirement that a physician who performs an abortion must be board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. S.B. 779 requires a physician who is certified to provide an abortion-inducing drug either to have admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or contiguous to the county where the abortion-inducing drug was administered or to have a written agreement with an associated physician in such location. S.B. 778 requires an Ultrasound be performed at least 72 hours prior to providing an abortion-inducing drug, but it does make an exception if such requirement would pose a greater risk of death or impairment.....

The clear weight of the evidence presented showed the apparent effect of the three Acts would place unnecessary burdens on the lawful termination of a pregnancy....

Maintaining the status quo would further the public interest of protecting a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy in order to preserve her life....

A concurring opinion and four dissenting opinions were filed. A dissent by Chief Justice Kane, joined by Justice Kuehn, says in part:

The constitutional analysis undertaken by the majority continues to omit the weighing of the rights and interests of the unborn. Any analysis of an abortion statute that proceeds under the proposition that the life of the unborn is unworthy of consideration is defective. In a separate concurring writing, my colleague makes the identical point as to the life of the mother. I completely agree with my colleague on this. However, the interests of the mother were the only interests considered by the majority- the rights of the unborn remain unheard.

AP reports on the decision.

Court Enjoins Idaho's Ban on Aiding a Minor in Obtaining an Abortion

In Matsumoto v, Labrador I, (D ID, Nov. 8, 2023), an Idaho federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcing Idaho Code Section 18-623 which provides in part:

An adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion ... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking.

The court said in part:

The Court finds Idaho Code Section 18-623 is a content-based regulation of protected speech and expression. The statute plainly regulates expression based on content by restricting adults from engaging in activities that advocate, assist, and communicate information and support to pregnant minors about legal abortion options....

Here, Idaho Code Section 18-623 fails to provide fair notice or ascertainable standard of what is and what is not abortion trafficking. The terms “recruiting, harboring, or transporting” are undefined, overbroad, and vague, making it impossible for a reasonable person to distinguish between permissible and impermissible activities....

In Matsumoto v. Labrador II, (D ID, Nov. 8, 2023), the same court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' First Amendment speech and 14th Amendment vagueness challenges as well as their right to interstate travel claims. However the court did dismiss plaintiffs right to intrastate travel challenge.

Reuters reports on the preliminary injunction.

Anti-Abortion Legislators in Ohio Will Seek to Remove Jurisdiction of Courts to Interpret New Constitutional Amendment

 As previously reported, abortion opponents in Ohio have taken several approaches in their unsuccessful attempt to prevent the adoption of a reproductive rights amendment to the Ohio Constitution. First they unsuccessfully attempted to amend the state constitution to increase the percentage of voters needed to adopt a constitutional amendment.  Then the state Ballot board adopted a description of the proposed amendment that was seen as painting the amendment in a less favorable light.  Nevertheless, earlier this week voters adopted the amendment by a vote of 56.6% to 43.4%.  Several legislators now say they will attempt to remove jurisdiction from Ohio courts to interpret the new amendment.  In a November 9 press release from the state legislature's Republican Newsroom, Republican legislators said in part:

“Foreign billionaires don't get to make Ohio laws,” said Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester), pointing to millions from billionaires outside America that helped fund Issue 1. Gross added, “This is foreign election interference, and it will not stand.”...

Representative Beth Lear (R-Galena) stated, “No amendment can overturn the God given rights with which we were born.”

To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative. The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides.

Suit Challenges Michigan's Reproductive Freedom Amendment on Federal Constitutional Grounds

In November 2022, Michigan voters passed a state constitutional amendment providing a right to reproductive freedom. Yesterday a group of plaintiffs filed suit in a Michigan federal district court contending that the state constitutional amendment violates the 1st and 14th Amendments to the federal Constitution, as well as the Constitution's Guarantee Clause. Among the 16 plaintiffs is "Jane Roe, a fictitious name on behalf of preborn babies." The complaint (full text) in Right to Life of Michigan v. Whitmer, (WD MI, filed 11/8/2023), alleges in part:

By reason of Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution ..., Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs, specifically including women, and in particular pregnant women; preborn human beings, including Jane Roe and similarly situated individuals; preborn human beings with disabilities; partially born human beings; and human beings born following a failed abortion of the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment....

 Article I, § 28 permits individuals, including public school officials, medical professionals, and others, to aid or assist a minor child with procuring an abortion, obtaining contraception, obtaining “gender reassignment” medication or procedures, and becoming sterilized without parental knowledge or consent and with impunity in violation of Plaintiffs’ parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

... Article I, § 28 permits adults to engage in sexual acts with minors so long as the minor consents, thereby undermining the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children in violation of Plaintiffs’ parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment....

Article I, § 28 nullifies all statutory protection provided to physicians and other medical professionals ... who object to abortion, contraception, “gender reassignment” medication/procedures, sterilization, puberty blockers, and other harmful medical procedures related to “reproduction” on moral and religious grounds in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs....

Article I, § 28 deprives preborn human beings, including Jane Roe and similarly situated individuals, preborn human beings with disabilities, partially born human beings, and human beings born following a failed abortion of the right to life and liberty without due process of law....

Article I, § 28, which was passed pursuant to the process of amending the Michigan Constitution, nullifies the legitimate authority of a coordinate branch of government, the Legislative Branch, by prohibiting it from regulating or governing in a broad area of the law (“reproduction”) that has historically been within its legitimate domain in violation of the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution....

Right To Life Michigan issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.  [Thanks to Scott Mange and Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Ohioans Vote On Reproductive Rights Amendment

In Ohio today, voters are casting ballots on State Issue 1 that, if approved will add the following to the Ohio Constitution:

Article I, Section 22. The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety

A. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on:
1. contraception;
2. fertility treatment;
3. continuing one’s own pregnancy;
4. miscarriage care; and
5. abortion.

B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either:

1. An individual's voluntary exercise of this right or

2. A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right,

unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.

However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.

C. As used in this Section:

1. “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.”

2. “State” includes any governmental entity and any political subdivision.

D. This Section is self-executing.

Ballotpedia has additional information on the proposed amendment. Live election results will be available here.

UPDATE: With 84% of the precincts reporting, the measure has passed 55.6% to 44.4%.

Missouri Appeals Court Finds Secretary of State's Ballot Summary of Abortion Rights Initiatives Unfair

In Fitz-James v. Ashcroft, (MO App., Oct. 31, 2023), a Missouri state appeals court agreed with a trial court that ballot summaries prepared by the Secretary of State for six different abortion rights initiative proposals were insufficient and unfair.  Three of the offending summaries read as follows:

Do you want the Missouri Constitution to:

• allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth, without requiring a medical license or potentially being subject to medical malpractice;

• nullify longstanding Missouri law protecting the right to life, including but not limited to partial-birth abortion;

• allow for laws to be enacted regulating abortion procedures after Fetal Viability, while guaranteeing the right of any woman, including a minor, to end the life of their unborn child at any time; and 

• require the government not to discriminate against persons providing or obtaining an abortion, potentially including tax-payer funding.

The appeals court, with a few modifications, accepted the trial court's rewritten versions of the ballot summaries. For example, the appeals court prescribed the following rewrite for one of the proposals:

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

• establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, with any governmental interference of that right presumed invalid;

• remove Missouri’s ban on abortion;

• allow regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient;

• require the government not to discriminate, in government programs, funding, and other activities, against persons providing or obtaining reproductive health care; and

• allow abortion to be restricted or banned after Fetal Viability except to protect the life or health of the woman?

The Secretary of State issued a press release criticizing the decision and saying that he plans to appeal it.  AP reports on the decision. (See prior related posting.) [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Free Speech and Free Exercise Challenges to Law Restricting Sidewalk Counselors Moves Ahead

In Pro-Life Action Ministries v. City of Minneapolis, (D MN, Oct. 30,2022), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed void-for-vagueness and an expressive-association challenges to a Minneapolis ordinance that bans physically disrupting access to a reproductive healthcare facility.  The court however refused to dismiss plaintiff's free speech, free exercise of religion and overbreadth claims. It said that it is impossible, without a trial record that explores historical background, legislative history, and contemporaneous statements of decisionmakers to determine whether the law is neutral and generally applicable, or whether, instead, it targets religious conduct. A trial record is also needed to decide whether the law is narrowly tailored. The suit was brought by a Christian nonprofit organization that engages in “sidewalk counseling” outside abortion clinics.

Court Enjoins Enforcement of Kansas Abortion Disclosure and Waiting Period Requirements

 In Hodes & Nauser MDs PA v. Kobach, (KS Dist. Ct., Oct. 30, 2023), a Kansas state trial court in a 92-page opinion issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the abortion disclosure and waiting period requirements in Kansas Woman’s-Right-to-Know Act and its Medication Abortion Reversal Amendment. The court, relying on state constitutional provisions, said in part:

The Kansas Supreme Court has previously noted that trial courts face a “heavy task” when wrestling with these issues, and this Court concurs in the observation that no easy decisions exist on what may be one of the most divisive social issues of our modern history.... Inevitably, some likely will disagree or take issue with the interim conclusions reached herein on Plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Injunction, whether based upon specific moral, ethical, or spiritual concerns. However, such considerations are (and must be) separate and apart from this Court’s role in evaluating the potential constitutional encroachment (or lack thereof) of the State’s efforts to impose its authority under the auspices of police power, given our state Founding Father’s emphasis on (and the primacy of) the people’s inalienable natural rights. Those constitutional guarantees include the people’s rights to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, health, family formation, and family life-decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy—all of which are necessary corollaries to the right of bodily autonomy. Similarly, the right to freedom of speech, whether to speak or avoid compelled speech, is also a fundamental right that our state founders held dear and enshrined in the Bill of Rights, thus, it demands protection under a strict scrutiny standard in this case....

The Court has great respect for the deeply held beliefs on either side of this contentious issue. Nevertheless, the State’s capacity to legislate pursuant to its own moral scruples is necessarily curbed by the Kansas Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The State may pick a side and viewpoint, but in doing so, it may not trespass upon the natural inalienable rights of the people. In this case, the preliminary record before the Court demonstrates that the provisions at issue invade and unconstitutionally infringe upon Kansans’ fundamental rights under Section 1 and 11 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.

KWCH News reported on the decision.

Satanic Temple Lacks Standing to Challenge Indiana Abortion Ban

 In The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Rokita, (SD IN, Oct. 23, 2023), an Indiana federal district court dismissed The Satanic Temple's challenge under Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the state's ban on abortions. The court dismissed for lack of standing, finding that TST failed to identify any of its members who are pregnant and has no clinic of its own operating in Indiana. Indiana's Attorney General issued a press release announcing the decision. Indiana Capital Chronicle reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Tennessee Sues to Restore Title X Grant Without Making Abortion Referrals

Tennessee's Attorney General this week filed suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeking to restore Tennessee's $7 million annual Title X family planning grant which had been cancelled because of the state's abortion referral policy.  The complaint (full text) in State of Tennessee v. Becerra, (ED TN, filed 10/24/2023), challenges the HHS rule that requires Title X grantees to furnish information and nondirective counseling on abortion if pregnant clients request it.  Tennessee was only willing to make referrals and provide counseling as to procedures that are legal in Tennessee,  HHS takes the position that where, as in Tennessee, abortion is outlawed, out-of-state referrals would be required. the suit contends that the HHS rule violates various provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. It asks the court, among other things, to:

Enjoin Defendants from withholding Title X funds from Tennessee for refusing to offer counseling and referrals (including out-of-state) for abortions that are otherwise illegal under Tennessee law.

Catholic World Report reports on the lawsuit.

Georgia Supreme Court: 2019 Heartbeat Abortion Ban Was Not Void Ab Initio

In State of Georgia v. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, (GA Sup. Ct., Oct. 24, 2023), the Georgia Supreme Court rejected a state trial court's holding that the state's heartbeat abortion ban (Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act) enacted in 2019 was void ab initio. The state Supreme Court had previously granted a stay of the trial court's order while the appeal was pending. Yesterday's decision keeps the law in effect while other challenges to it work their way through the courts. In yesterday's decision, the court said in part:

[T]he trial court concluded that portions of the LIFE Act were void when enacted in 2019 because they “were plainly unconstitutional [under the United States Constitution] when drafted, voted upon, and enacted.” According to the trial court, this was true even though the LIFE Act would comply with the United States Constitution if enacted today and the same United States Constitution governs today as governed when the LIFE Act was enacted.

This incorrect conclusion rests on a faulty premise — that, in Dobbs, the United States Supreme Court changed not only its interpretation of the United States Constitution but also the meaning of the Constitution itself. This could be true, however, only if (1) the United States Supreme Court, as opposed to the United States Constitution, is the source of the Constitution’s meaning or (2) the United States Supreme Court has the power not only to interpret the Constitution but also to amend it.... [B]oth of these propositions conflict with well-established, foundational principles of law that are essential to our system of government.

The case now goes back to the trial court for it to consider other challenges under the state constitution to the law.

Justice Ellington filed a dissenting opinion. WABE News reports on the decision. ACLU issued a press release reacting to the decision.

Colorado Ban on Medication Abortion Reversal Violates Clinic's Free Exercise Rights

In Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, (D CO, Oct. 21, 2023), a Colorado federal district court issued a preliminary injunction barring the state from taking enforcement action under a law enacted earlier this year against an anti-abortion pregnancy center for offering and advertising its medication abortion reversal services. The court said in part:

Bella Health considers it a religious obligation to provide treatment for pregnant mothers and to protect unborn life if the mother seeks to stop or reverse an abortion.... The State Defendants have not contested that SB 23-190 burdens Bella Health’s religious practice. Indeed, it is not up to the State or the Court to second-guess the sincerity of Bella Health’s religious motivations or to suggest alternative means of satisfying Plaintiffs’ religious calling. 

The more difficult question is whether Section Three’s prohibition on abortion pill reversal is neutral and generally applicable. It is not for three reasons. First, the law treats comparable secular activity more favorably than Bella Health’s religious activity.... Second, the law contains mechanisms for exemptions that undercut the State’s expressed interests.... Third, the law’s object and effect is to burden religious conduct in a way that is not neutral.

Colorado Politics reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Crisis Pregnancy Center Sues Protesters Under FACE Act

 A civil suit under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act was filed last week in a New York federal district court by CompassCare which operates an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center in a Buffalo, NY suburb.  The complaint (full text) in Crisis Pregnancy Services, Inc. v. Kamke, (WD NY, filed 10/5/2023), alleges that defendant organized a counter-protest to CompassCare's Walk for Life at which protesters blocked a highway and assaulted walkers and police.  It alleges that subsequently, one of the defendants wrote graffiti on the organization's driveway, intending to deter staff, volunteers and patients from entering, and on another occasion stole a no-trespassing sign. Another defendant allegedly spray painted the word Liars over the center's entrance sign.  Finally it alleges that Jane Doe defendants were involved with a firebombing and graffiti. LifeNews reports on the lawsuit.

Cert. Filed In Abortion Sidewalk Counseling Dispute

 A petition for certiorari (full text) was filed yesterday with the U.S. Supreme Court in Reilly v. City of Harrisburg, (Sup. Ct., filed 10/10/2023).  In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by anti-abortion sidewalk counselors challenging Harrisburg's ordinance creating a 20-foot buffer zone designed to exclude protesters around health-care facilities, including abortion clinics. In its opinion, the 3rd Circuit agreed that the city did not have a policy or custom prohibiting one-on-one sidewalk counseling. Liberty Counsel issued a press release announcing the filing of the petition for review.