Federal court strikes down Wisconsin abortion law as unconstitutional

A panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in a 2-1 ruling concluded Monday the medical benefit to the requirement was 'nonexistent' and 'cannot be taken seriously as a measure to improve women’s health.'

Rick Wilking/Reuters
A closed Planned Parenthood facility is seen in Westminster, Colorado, September 9, 2015.

A US appeals court has ruled that a Wisconsin law requiring that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital, is unconstitutional.

The law in question requires doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where they carry out the procedure.

Abortion providers, Planned Parenthood and Affiliated Medical Services (AMS), sued the state arguing that the law effectively restricted access to abortions in Wisconsin.

A panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in a 2-1 ruling concluded Monday the medical benefit to the requirement was “nonexistent” and “cannot be taken seriously as a measure to improve women’s health.”

Supporters of the law argued that requiring doctors performing procedures to have local admitting privileges would ensure that patients receive continuous care should complications arise that warrant hospitalization.

The plaintiffs said that the new law would effectively shutter AMS's clinic in Milwaukee. Planned Parenthood clinics picking up the additional caseload would likely see increases in wait times, making it more difficult to women to schedule procedures, according to the lawsuit.

In March 2015, US District Judge William Conley had said that the law served no legitimate health interest. The Wisconsin Department of Justice subsequently appealed to the 7th Circuit.

“What makes no sense is to abridge the constitutional right to an abortion on the basis of spurious contentions regarding women’s health – and the abridgment challenged in this case would actually endanger women’s health,” Judge Richard Posner wrote for the majority.

Dissenting was Judge Daniel Manion, who said admitting privileges requirement helps protects women's health and doesn't amount to an undue constitutional burden. 

"The solution to the plaintiffs' problems is that they find more qualified doctors, not that the state relax – or that we strike down as unconstitutional – precautions taken by the state to protect the health and safety of pregnant women who have chosen to end their pregnancies," Judge Manion wrote.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin issued a statement praising the 7th Circuit decision. The group's CEO, Teri Huyck, said the law was intended "to put obstacles in the path of women seeking safe, legal abortion care in Wisconsin."

According to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports legal access to abortion, eleven states have imposed similar admitting privilege requirements on abortion providers.  Of those 11 states, courts have temporarily blocked the requirements in six states. 

The US Supreme Court, is set to hear a similar case in Texas, an oral argument will likely be heard early next year with a decision issued by late June. 

This report contains material from the Associated Press and Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Federal court strikes down Wisconsin abortion law as unconstitutional
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today