Abortion

Last Abortion Clinic in Mississippi Will Remain Open Per 5th Circuit Ruling

|

Jackson Women's Health Organization/Facebook

A ruling from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will allow Mississippi's one remaining abortion clinic to stay open, despite the fact that doctors there do not have admitting privileges at a local hospital. In 2012, the Mississippi legislature passed a law requiring all abortion clinic doctors to have such privileges—ostensibly in the name of women's health, but more realistically as way to restrict abortion access. 

Since then, doctors with the Jackson Women's Health Organization—the only abortion clinic in the state—have applied for admitting privileges at 13 regional hospitals and been denied every time. 

Meanwhile, the clinic has been fighting the law in court, and the matter came before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in April. In the court's 2-1 decision, handed down today, judges held that the law "imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion in Mississippi, and is therefore unconstitutional." 

NEXT: Silent Defiance: Kid Wears 'RIP Eric Garner' Shirt, Dunks Over Cop Car

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What do uncircumcised millennials think of this ruling?

    1. Let me check and report back…

      1. We’re still waiting on those tweaking videos, Nikki.

        Just sayin…

        1. Twerking.

          I’ve got to turn off autocorrect.

        2. nicole is going to film herself on a meth bender?

          That’s entertainment!

    2. Are the abortions being performed Israeli abortions?

      1. +one foreskin?

  2. If abortion is a right, I don’t see how the hospitals have the right to deny the doctors admission rights. I don’t see how they can lawfully discriminate based on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. The solution here is to tell the hospitals to get bent and give a legitimate reason for denying such.

    1. Owning guns and speaking your mind are rights too, but health care facilities can choose to refuse to do business with those involved in both if they want.

    2. The solution here is to tell the hospitals to get bent and give a legitimate reason for denying such.

      Why do,you assume they didn’t give a legit,reason?

      1. Maybe they did. If so, then the problem here is that the clinic can’t find qualified doctors not that the state requires such.

        1. They had two freaking years to get admitting procedures after the court granted them a stay in 2012. And nowhere in the two links (one,is a press release from the plaintiff and the other is from HuffPo…hardly two impartial sources) does it say that they were refused on arbitrary grounds, except for one attorney claiming one hospital told them not to bother applying.

          I’m sorry, but this,is some,shoddy and slanted reporting on the issue. It’s basically saying that even if Kermitt go snell were the only clinic that he should be left open because the rules are restrictive. Never mind that he runs a butcher shop and can’t meet the hospital standards for admitting privileges.

          Really. HuffPo and the plaintiff’s press release?

          1. Okay. But what is the point of requiring them to have such other than to fuck with them?

            1. I don’t know. What is the point in requiring orthodontists in the state to also have them?

              Maybe to ensure that they operate clean and safe facilities?

              1. Because let’s face it, if you are gonna have someone butcher a living human inside of you, it should at least be done in a clean, sterile environment. Amirite?

            2. But what is the point of requiring them to have such other than to fuck with them?

              In this state, I can’t say, but its not unusual for states to require doctors operating in ambulatory surgery centers to have hospital privileges. Abortion clinics often perform what amounts to ambulatory surgery, although they generally manage to avoid having to be licensed as such.

        2. FOR THE NTH TIME!

          TO HAVE ADMITTING PRIVILEGES, YOU HAVE TO ADMIT x PATIENTS INTO THE HOSPITAL POER YEAR!!!!!!

          The guys working at the abortion clinic are doing an outpatient procedure. Their practice is such that they will only admit someone if they accidentally happen to come across someone needing hospitalization!!!!!!!!

          It’s like requiring the guys selling firearms in a state to prove they repaired x howitzers per year.

          1. TO HAVE ADMITTING PRIVILEGES, YOU HAVE TO ADMIT x PATIENTS INTO THE HOSPITAL POER YEAR!!!!!!

            That’s up to hospital policy, but it’s certainly not a requirement. Nearly every hospital in America has physicians with admitting privileges limited to consultative services, for example.

  3. At some point Roe is going to make it’s way before the Supreme Court again. Kind of wish they would just get it over and done with soon.

    1. I am anti abortion. But, the fact is that the courts consider it a constitutionally protected right, regardless of what I think. So as long as it is a “right” as defined by the courts, the states or private parties shouldn’t be able to fuck with it like this. I object to the states fucking with gun rights like this. Just because I disagree with Roe doesn’t make this any better.

      1. I appreciate that position, John. +1 for ideological consistency!

      2. No, I agree with what you are saying. But they keep passing laws like this anyway because they hope someday one court will make a ruling necessitating SCOTUS review that could involve challenging Roe.

        Maybe if SCOTUS emphatically tells them to knock it off laws like these will stop.

        1. I wonder how many people said the same when places,tried,to,integrate schools or train cars after Plessy v Ferguson.

      3. You’re correct, but I do enjoy watching the pro-death team squirm under the same sort of political tactics usually employed against gun rights, speech rights, assembly rights, religious rights, and freedom of association rights.

      4. You’re too young, but would you have felt the same about Plessy v Ferguson?

        1. Yes. The answer in both cases is to change the law or engage in civil disobedience not for states to ignore it. And Plessy didn’t require states segregate. So it is a poor analogy.

      5. I tend to agree, John. That said, since we allow other rights to be burdened by health and safety laws, I don’t see this as necessarily a departure from current jurisprudence.

        And, we give legislatures enormous deference in burdening our rights with health and safety laws, generally requiring only “rational basis” review.

        I think there’s a pretty good case to be made that these kinds of restrictions, whatever their motivation, pass muster under our current jurisprudence.

        1. “And, we give legislatures enormous deference in burdening our rights with health and safety laws, generally requiring only “rational basis” review.”

          Different when it touches on a constitutionally guaranteed right though.

          1. Oh, so,there are no burdens,on acquiring a gun? On protesting in front of the Supreme Court?
            On the Fourth Amendment when we enter an airport?

            That’s good to know.

          2. Different when it touches on a constitutionally guaranteed right though.

            It depends on the right. For most of them, its rational basis. For some, its intermediate. For the rights most cherished by the social circles in which Justices run, its strict scrutiny.

            1. I don’t think that is right.

              For example, a lawsuit against a regulating newspapers which alleges freedom of speech is being restricted is going to get a different level of scrutiny than a lawsuit regulating who can give eye exams (to take a famous example).

              It’s not something I agree with, of course.

              1. Yes, Bo, it is right, and what’s more, when you point out that there are differing levels of review, you are actually agreeing with me.

        2. Agreed. This,would be akin to saying restaurants in a certain part of the state don’t have to meet the same health department standards as other parts because they’re not serviced by as many restaurants.

          Arbitrary and capricious application of the law, in my opinion. Either all clinics meet the standard or none do.

    2. Kind of wish they would just get it over and done with soon.

      It will never be “over and done with.” Someone will bring it back again. And again, and again, and again. That’s the great thing about wedge Kulture War issues for politicians: it keeps the proles distracted from how badly they’re getting fucked.

  4. I’m sure Obamacare will straighten this out.

    1. Abortions for All!

      1. Boo!

        Abortions for None!

        Boo!

        Abortions for some, little American flags for others!

        Yaaa!

  5. I wait with bated breath for the courts to use this ruling to end the gun restrictions cities like San FrN and Chicago,have placed on their residents.

    You know, the restriction of an actual right.

    1. If I follow the logic correctly, a woman’s right to medical privacy and the access to abortion trumps the state’s right to legislate for public health purposes (the basis of the admitting privileges regulations).

      But the right iof the people to keep and bear arms does not trump, broadly speaking, a state or city’s right to legislate for purposes of public safety.

      Yeah, an obvious inconsistency if you value the right of the state to do things for the ostensibly public good, which is a cornerstone of liberalism.

      1. Regulators usually support ‘regulations for thee, but not for me.’

      2. That’s totally,ass backwards. They claim to have a right to restrict a clearly written right (2A) but not to restrict one the court had to turn themselves into a pretzel,to manufacture (abortion)?

        That’s fucked. Totally fucked.

        1. Some of these restrictions are being struck down. Bans on selling guns and on shooting ranges (Chicago, of course) for example.

          1. BZZZZZZZZT. They use a public safety exemption to render ranges and shops effectively unopenable by saying they can’t be within a certain distance from a school.

            So they’ve done exactly what Mississippi is accused of doing here and have gotten away with it so far.

            1. Is that what they’ve done now? They’re incorrigible.

              1. In addition to requiring a costly license to buy, a license to buy ammo and the requirement that the purchase is videotaped.

                1. Just imagine if a state passed a law saying women coming into an abortion clinic had to be videotaped.

            2. Col John and Nikki, has any judicial progress been made against these restrictive city policies?

              1. Chicago is not too bad on guns. Considering. Current state of affairs is basically the same here as in the rest of the state, except there are still no ranges or gun stores in town. There will have to be–but who would want to pay the extra Cook County sales tax on a gun? So we still won’t do that. But. For the whole state:

                Must have a FOID to purchase a gun or ammo (also to rent a gun at the range, but I don’t know if that’s the law or just a thing for them). FOID costs $10 and is good for 10 years, takes about a month to get. This used to take forever to get, but they got slapped for that.

                No gun registration of any kind. (Chicago formerly required handgun registration but does so no longer.)

                CCW permit: We haven’t actually done this yet, but the requirements are very low. If you were poor or didn’t have a car to get out to a range, it would be difficult but far from impossible (definitely an undue burden, of course). Not as cheap as the FOID but not exorbitant. The real worst thing is that you still aren’t allowed to carry on the CTA, so that knocks out its usefulness in a big way for a lot of people. The other bad thing is that they’re denying more people, it looks like, than they should be, and for unclear reasons. This is going to get them sued for sure and they’ll be fucked again. But it is “shall issue” (unless someone has some unidentified problem with you…).

                So, we are much better off now than, say, NYC, where you have registration and no shall issue.

              2. Not yet…damn them, they are going to wage a Fabian campaign against an enumerated Constitutional right, the #$%&.

                1. Or, what nikki said, worst tho’ she is.

  6. Since then, doctors with the Jackson Women’s Health Organization?the only abortion clinic in the state?have applied for admitting privileges at 13 regional hospitals and been denied every time.

    As was the intent of those who drafted and voted for this law.

  7. doctors with the Jackson Women’s Health Organization?the only abortion clinic in the state?have applied for admitting privileges at 13 regional hospitals and been denied every time.

    If you get turned down by 13 hospitals, its going to be for one of two reasons:

    (1) You aren’t qualified (generally, board-certified) or you have a bad patient safety/malpractice history; or

    (2) You aren’t willing to be on-call for their ED.

    1. or 3) the hospitals don’t want to have pro-lifers protesting them and attacking their funding sources.

      1. Has that happened in the past?

        Serious question.

        1. Yes, that’s why off-site abortion clinics were hit upon as a solution. I’m dredging this up from a book I read, so take that as you will.

          1. Read Bo’s link below for a modern example.

            1. If I read that right, it looks like they revoked the admitting privileges because they were performing abortions at other facilities which meant they couldn’t monitor their procedures as they wanted to.

              Am I reading that wrong?

              1. “said they received letters from University General Hospital in Dallas revoking their admitting privileges at the hospital after anti-abortion protesters targeted the hospital.”

                1. “In March, anti-abortion protesters targeted University General Hospital for granting Robinson admitting privileges and demanded that the hospital revoke the privileges of any doctor who performs voluntary abortions.

                  A Catholic blogger who helped organize the protests commended the hospital on March 28 for revoking Robinson’s privileges.”

                2. Correlation =/= causality.

                  1. Yes, I’m sure the decision to fire them occurring days after the protest (and threat of more) had nothing to do with the revocation, and the court just ignored that it probably had nothing to do with it when they won their privileges back.

                    1. It may or may not have. And they didn’t win their privileges back. The litigants settled it themselves…which leads me to believe the following passage was relevant:

                      “In the settlement, University General Hospital was “restrained from directly or indirectly” revoking the doctors’ admitting privileges because of their “willingness to participate in an abortion procedure” at another facility.

                      Why would they address it in the settlement if it wasn’t the reason given for,revoking the privilege in the first place?

      2. Well, Suge, I certainly think that’s possible at maybe one or two hospitals, but not 13 in a row. But that’s just me, having worked in the biz for nearly 20 years.

        Texas has a similar requirement, I believe. I don’t recall hospitals being attacked there for extending privileges to doctors who also perform abortions. Hell, even Catholic hospitals do that, as long as you don’t do abortions in their facilities.

          1. “Two Texas abortion doctors who filed a lawsuit against a Dallas hospital after losing their admitting privileges have settled their case with the hospital, which will reinstate their privileges.

            In April, Lamar Robinson, owner of Abortion Advantage, and Jasbir Ahluwalia, the medical director of Routh Street Women’s Clinic, said they received letters from University General Hospital in Dallas revoking their admitting privileges at the hospital after anti-abortion protesters targeted the hospital.”

            1. And, thank you for illustrating my point below re: lawsuits and hospital privileges.

              1. So you commented saying “I don’t recall hospitals being attacked there for extending privileges to doctors who also perform abortions.” and then when provided with one from your own state your response is ‘well, that backs up my other statement about how, yeah, the hospitals might be targeted but you can always fight a long legal battle to get the rights back?’

                1. And notice, that story was about a hospital which revoked two doctor’s privileges, not one that refused to admit in the first place (for which there might be different legal or contractual issues).

                2. I wasn’t aware of the University Hospital thing because I don’t live in Texas anymore.

                  So, there’s one.

                  And yeah, I appreciate your confirmation that hospitals are liable to be sued if they do this, which is another reason to doubt that all 13 hospitals did it because they were abortion doctors.

                  Jeebus, what are they teaching in law schools these days?

      3. Two other things to keep in mind:

        Hospitals have been sued, and paid ten-figure damages, for denying privileges for reasons that have nothing to do with providing patient care.

        Hospitals have a financial incentive to admit doctors to their medical staffs. That’s where the hospital’s patients come from, and who does the procedures in the hospital, after all.

        1. I find it difficult to believe such would call for billions in damages…

          1. You’re right. It should have been 8 figures.

  8. So we have a meeting scheduled with my kids’ congressman tomorrow morning (Nunes R-CA) followed by a tour of the Capitol.

    He’s a Central Valley republican that’s been a pretty vocal opponent of the water scheme in California that’s all but destroying the agriculture on the west side of the valley. Anybody have specific questions I should ask him?

    1. “Are you stupid, or just crooked?”

    2. Isn’t there an easier way to show them the venal nature of man, like taking them to a crack den?

      1. and risk exposing them to those carcinogen? You are a monster.

        1. Like the Capitol is safer? It’s like a pedophile convention that never ends.

    3. “When did you stop beating your wife?”

      1. Lol. He’s a pretty decent congressman, as congressmen go. He’s been a pretty vocal supporter of cutting spending and has been raising hell about water restrictions from the Feds.

        Besides, if you’ve taken your kids to see one crack house you’ve seen them all.

  9. Oh yay, another abortion thread. This should be fun.

  10. A 2-1 decision in favor of abortion rights. And the two-person majority pulls the equivalent of a Godwin by claiming that by driving abortion-minded women into other states, the law is *just like* a Jim Crow state requiring black students to go out-of-state for an education.

    You know, Al Sharpton just called and said that he’s troubled by the court’s excessive race-baiting.

    The dissenting judge is named “Emilio Garza,” which is totally a redneck racist name. Judge Garza has the idea that his colleagues are full of shit and that they can’t just invoke an irrelevant Jim Crow precedent that is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. Judge Garza seems to think that just because Mississippi’s abortionists can’t get admission privileges at private hospitals doesn’t mean that Mississippi is constitutionally obligated to lower its standards of medical practice.

    But Judge Garza and the Mississippi legislature are wrong because…everything for abortion, nothing against abortion, nothing outside abortion!

    1. The dissenting judge is named “Emilio Garza”

      Clearly one of those Mexican Catholics. You can expect to see NOW at the next border protest.

  11. I think we’re getting a little ahead of ourselves here. I mean, does the clinic even have a Certificate of Need proving that there’s demand for its services and that it won’t take away any business from other providers or impact prices?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.