Amy Howe

Sep 22 2017

Planned Parenthood asks justices to step into abortion dispute

Arguing that two Missouri abortion requirements are “virtually identical” to the Texas regulations that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016, Planned Parenthood asked the Supreme Court to reinstate a lower court’s order blocking the state from enforcing the requirements.

After the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt in 2016, Planned Parenthood went to federal district court in Missouri, arguing that two of the state’s abortion requirements violate the Constitution: the requirement that physicians providing abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic; and the requirement that abortion facilities be licensed as surgical centers. The combined effect of the two requirements, Planned Parenthood tells the justices, is that there are only two facilities providing abortions in Missouri, “a state that covers nearly 70,000 square miles and has a population of over six million people.” And that in turn, Planned Parenthood argues, “imposes enormous burdens on women seeking abortions” in the state, particularly women who are poor, have medical conditions, or are victims of abuse.

The district court temporarily blocked the state from enforcing the two requirements, reasoning that both rules bore a close resemblance to the Texas rules that the Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional in Whole Woman’s Health. The state appealed the district court’s order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and asked that court to stay the lower court’s order pending appeal. After the 8th Circuit declined to freeze the district court’s order, the state went to the full 8th Circuit, which agreed to do so.

Today Planned Parenthood asked the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that if it does not, three other health centers “will remain unable to provide abortion services pending resolution of the appeal before the Eighth Circuit—even though the laws preventing them from doing so are surely unconstitutional.” The group’s filing was directed to the court’s newest justice, Neil Gorsuch, who handles emergency appeals from the geographic region that includes Missouri. Gorsuch can handle the request himself or refer it to the full court; he can, and is likely to, also direct the state to respond before ruling on Planned Parenthood’s application.

This post was also republished at SCOTUSblog.com.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Court takes up civil rights “tester” case
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court takes up civil rights “tester” case
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies