Supreme Court upholds Arkansas law restricting medication-induced abortions

Planned Parenthood attempted to appeal a decision to restrict medication-induced abortions in Arkansas, but was denied a hearing by Supreme Court justices. The decision has reinforced Republican-supported laws that aim to limit abortion services. 

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Supreme Court justices declined to hear an appeal from Planned Parenthood to overturn a ruling restricting abortion services in Arkansas on May 29.

In a setback to abortion rights advocates, the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday paved the way for Republican-backed restrictions on medication-induced abortions to take effect in Arkansas that could lead to the shuttering of two of the state's three abortion clinics.

The nine justices, with no noted dissents, declined to hear an appeal by abortion provider Planned Parenthood of a lower court ruling that had revived the state law, which sets regulations regarding the RU-486 "abortion pill," after it was earlier struck down by a federal judge. The law had remained blocked pending the outcome of the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The high court's action will not be the final word on the matter. Planned Parenthood, which argues that the law would ban medication abortion in Arkansas, said it will immediately ask a federal judge to reimpose the injunction blocking the law.

Planned Parenthood also said it is telling patients they can no longer access medication abortion at its two clinics in the state. The only other abortion clinic in Arkansas, Little Rock Family Planning Services in the state capital, offers both surgical and medication abortions.

"This law cannot and must not stand. We will not stop fighting for every person's right to access safe, legal abortion," said Dawn Laguens, Planned Parenthood's executive vice president.

A spokeswoman for Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge had no immediate comment.

The Supreme Court in 1973 legalized abortion nationwide, but many Republican-governed states have passed laws seeking to impose a variety of restrictions, some so demanding that they may shut down abortion clinics and make the procedure far more difficult to obtain.

Texas ruling

The justices, in a 2016 ruling, struck down a restrictive Republican-backed Texas law that had targeted abortion clinics and doctors in a decision that was seen as reaffirming and fortifying legal protections for abortion rights. Planned Parenthood had claimed the appeals court ruling in the Arkansas case had disregarded the precedent set in the Texas case.

The St. Louis-based 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals restored the law last year, reversing a 2016 ruling by a district court judge that had prevented it from going into effect.

Planned Parenthood Great Plains sued the state in 2015, saying the law would deprive many Arkansas women of their legal right to an abortion.

The law involves the RU-486 "abortion pill," also called mifepristone (brand name Mifeprex) and misoprostol (brand name Cytotec). It requires any doctor dispensing the drug to sign a contract with another doctor who would agree to handle any medical complications from it, an unusual and difficult-to-achieve arrangement. The contracted doctor also must have admitting privileges at a hospital designated to handle emergencies.

Arkansas said the law was aimed at protecting women against the "dangerous and potentially dangerous" off-label use of the abortion pills.

RU-486 was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2000 subject to the instructions stated on the label. The "off-label" use prohibited by Arkansas allowed for less physician oversight when RU-486 is used. Planned Parenthood, which offers only medication-induced abortions at its two facilities in Arkansas, said the effect of the law would be to ban such abortions in the state.

The district court judge had found that women in Fayetteville, for example, would then have to make two 380-mile round trips to get an abortion at what would be the state's last remaining abortion clinic.

Even as US states seek to impose new limits on abortion, restrictions in some other countries are loosening. Ireland voted overwhelmingly last week to repeal a constitutional amendment that banned abortion.

In 2013, the US Supreme Court left intact an Oklahoma court ruling that struck down a state law that would have effectively banned RU-486.

In the Supreme Court's current term, which runs through the end of June, the justices are weighing another abortion-related case in which operators of Christian-affiliated "crisis pregnancy centers" that steer women with unplanned pregnancies away from abortion are challenging a California law that requires them to post notices telling women about the availability of state-subsidized abortions.

This story was reported by Reuters. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

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 Supreme Court upholds Arkansas law restricting medication-induced abortions
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2018/0529/Supreme-Court-upholds-Arkansas-law-restricting-medication-induced-abortions
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe