Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Abortion

Abortion Doctors in Alabama Don't Need Hospital Admitting Privileges

"Thousands of women per year" would be "unduly burdened" by the requirement, says a federal judge.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 3.28.2016 1:30 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | Alabama Reproductive Rights Advocates (ARRA)/Facebook
(Alabama Reproductive Rights Advocates (ARRA)/Facebook)
Alabama Reproductive Rights Advocates (ARRA)/Facebook

An Alabama abortion restriction similar to the Texas law currently before the U.S. Supreme Court was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson permanently blocked the state law, which would have required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. 

"The staff-privileges requirement would make it impossible for a woman to obtain an abortion in much of [Alabama]," wrote Myron in his decision. "It is certain that thousands of women per year—approximately 40 percent of those seeking abortions in the State—would be unduly burdened."

The doomed law, known as the "Women's Health and Safety Act," passed the Alabama legislature in 2013 and was soon challenged in court. In 2014, Judge Thompson extended an order blocking enforcement of the law, in a decision that drew parallels between abortion and gun ownership. 

"The court poses the hypothetical that … the federal or state government were to implement a new restriction on who may sell firearms and ammunition and on the procedure they must employ in selling such goods," wrote Thompson.

… and that, further, only two vendors in the State of Alabama were capable of complying with the restriction: one in Huntsville and one in Tuscaloosa. The defenders of this law would be called upon to do a heck of a lot of explaining—and rightly so in the face of an effect so severe. Similarly, in this case, so long as the Supreme Court continues to recognize a constitutional right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, any regulation that would, in effect, restrict the exercise of that right to only Huntsville and Tuscaloosa should be subject to the same skepticism. 

A Texas admitting privileges law that would severely curtail the number of abortion clinics in the Lone Star state is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Heaven Help California's Non-Urban Cities Under a $15 Minimum Wage

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

AbortionReproductive FreedomAlabamaRegulationHealth CareWomenConstitution
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (171)

Latest

The App Store Freedom Act Compromises User Privacy To Punish Big Tech

Jack Nicastro | 5.8.2025 4:57 PM

Is Shiloh Hendrix Really the End of Cancel Culture?

Robby Soave | 5.8.2025 4:10 PM

Good Riddance to Ed Martin, Trump's Failed Pick for U.S. Attorney for D.C.

C.J. Ciaramella | 5.8.2025 3:55 PM

Trump's Tariffs Are Already Raising Car Prices and Hurting Automakers

Joe Lancaster | 5.8.2025 2:35 PM

Trump's Antitrust Enforcer Says 'Big Is Bad'

Jack Nicastro | 5.8.2025 2:19 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!