Tough anti-abortion laws examined in federal court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even with legislatures in summer recess, there's no lull in the battle over state anti-abortion laws as several federal courts decide whether to uphold or strike down some of the most sweeping measures.

In Texas, abortion providers were in court this week asking a federal judge to stop a new law that they say would close more than half of the state's abortion facilities by imposing costly new standards.

In Alabama, a federal judge ruled Monday that a law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privileges was unconstitutional. A similar law in Wisconsin is under court review.

And in Idaho and Arkansas, state officials are asking federal appellate judges to reverse lower court rulings that struck down laws sharply narrowing the time frame in which women can get abortions.

These and other cases result from the vast array of abortion restrictions approved by Republican-controlled legislatures in recent years. The laws take several different forms, including restricting the availability of abortion medication, curtailing insurance coverage for abortion, imposing new requirements on abortion clinics and providers, and prohibiting most abortions after 20 weeks.

Here's a look at some of major types of laws, and how they figure in pending legal cases:


In more than a dozen states, opponents of abortion have introduced bills requiring that doctors at abortion clinics have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Such laws could force the closure of clinics whose doctors — in some cases from out-of-town — are unable to get admitting privileges.

The laws have taken effect in some states, including Missouri, Texas, Utah and Tennessee, but have been blocked, at least temporarily, in other states, including Mississippi, Alabama and Wisconsin.

Admitting-privileges laws are scheduled to take effect Sept. 1 in Louisiana and Nov. 1 in Oklahoma. Abortion-rights groups say the laws will leave only one clinic open in Oklahoma and force the closure of at least three of Louisiana's five clinics, including those serving New Orleans, leaving clinics only in the northwestern corner of the state.


The measure debated this week in federal court in Austin, Texas, was part of a sweeping anti-abortion law passed last year by the GOP-controlled Legislature. It would require all abortion clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers, entailing costs that abortion supporters say could not be met by 18 clinics. Such closures would leave many women along the Texas-Mexico border with at least a four-hour drive to the closest U.S. abortion provider.

Similar measures have been pushed in other states, including Virginia, which, under Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell adopted regulations last year requiring existing abortion clinics to meet the same strict building standards as new hospitals. McDonnell's Democratic successor, Terry McAuliffe, has directed the state health board to complete a review of the regulations by Oct. 1 and has appointed five new board members who support abortion rights.

Supporters of the regulations say they are intended to protect women's health; opponents say the aim is to put clinics out of business.


Under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling establishing a nationwide right to abortion, states were permitted to restrict abortions after viability — the point when the fetus has a reasonable chance of surviving under normal conditions outside the uterus. The ruling offered no legal definition of viability, saying it could range between 24 and 28 weeks into a pregnancy.

In recent years, abortion opponents in several states have challenged this aspect of Roe by proposing laws narrowing the time frame for legal abortions. The strictest laws — in North Dakota and Arkansas — were struck down by federal judges, and both states are pursuing appeals. North Dakota's law would ban abortions as soon as a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The Arkansas law would ban abortions after 12 weeks.

A more common approach, tried by about a dozen states, is to enact a law banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy on the disputed premise that a fetus can feel pain at that stage. Some of those laws have taken effect; others have been blocked in Arizona, Georgia and Idaho. The Idaho attorney general's office is working on an appeal of the ruling striking down Idaho's ban.


Another line of attack by abortion opponents has targeted the increasingly common option of terminating a pregnancy via medication rather than surgery.

In Arizona, a federal appeals court panel has blocked rules released in January by the state health department that would ban women from taking the most common abortion-inducing drug — RU-486 — after the seventh week of pregnancy. The state is fighting in court to put the rules into effect.

In Indiana, a federal judge has blocked a law that would have required clinics offering nonsurgical abortions using the abortion pill to meet the same standards as those performing surgical abortions.


While abortion restrictions have surfaced in state legislatures for decades, the trend has accelerated in recent years, with some of the new laws — such as the admitting-privileges measures — threatening to close most or all abortion clinics in a given state.

"It used to be a brick-by-brick approach, and now they're throwing up the wall all at once, so you can't get over it no matter how high you jump," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project.

Many of the recent laws are modeled on proposals by Americans United for Life, which depicts abortion as a danger to women's health. The aim of the tighter restrictions, says AUL's president, Charmaine Yoest, is "protecting women and their unborn children from a largely unregulated, unrestricted, and unrepentant abortion industry."

Abortion-rights supporters insist that the procedure is safe and were heartened by Monday's ruling in Alabama, where U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson rejected the state's argument that admitting privileges should be required as a protection for women. He said the law, by forcing the closure of clinics in three cities, "would impose significant obstacles, burdens and costs for women."

Given that federal judges have blocked admitting-privileges laws in some states and upheld them in others, it's possible a case may reach the U.S. Supreme Court. In its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling, the high court said states could impose some restrictions on abortion, but not an "undue burden" on women's rights to the procedure.

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said the bills requiring admitting privileges or setting costly standards for abortion clinics were imposing an undue burden by forcing some clinics to close.

"The Supreme Court will have to make clear their decision in Casey doesn't mean politicians have free rein to lie about their motives and intrude on women's decisions to end their pregnancy," she said.

Ovide Lamontagne, general counsel of Americans United for Life, agreed that the split lower court decisions might lead to a Supreme Court case. He expressed hope that the high court would view the state laws as promoting "commonsense health and safety standards."


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.