Supreme Court Refuses Case On Arkansas Law Restricting Medication Abortions
The legislation requires providers of medication abortions to have contracts with doctors who have admitting privileges at a hospital in the state. The case will continue being litigated in the lower courts, but for now Arkansas is now the first state to essentially ban medication abortions.
The New York Times:
Supreme Court Allows Arkansas Abortion Restrictions To Stand
The Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to hear a challenge to an Arkansas law that could force two of the state’s three abortion clinics to close.As is their custom, the justices gave no reasons for turning away the appeal. The case will continue to be litigated in the lower courts. The law concerns medication abortions, which use pills to induce abortions in the first nine weeks of pregnancy. The law, enacted in 2015, requires providers of the procedure to have contracts with doctors who have admitting privileges at a hospital in the state. Abortion clinics in Arkansas said they were unable to find any doctors willing to sign such contracts. (Liptak, 5/29)
The Associated Press:
Justices Allow Arkansas To Enforce Abortion Restrictions
The justices didn't comment in rejecting an appeal from the Planned Parenthood affiliate in Arkansas that asked the court to review an appeals court ruling and reinstate a lower court order that had blocked the law from taking effect. The law says doctors who provide abortion pills must hold a contract with another physician who has admitting privileges at a hospital and who would agree to handle complications — and Planned Parenthood says it has been unable to find any able to do so. The law is similar to a provision in Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. (Sherman, 5/29)
The Wall Street Journal:
Supreme Court Allows Arkansas Restrictions On Abortion Drugs
The court’s announcement, in a one-line order, was a blow to abortion-rights advocates who said a 2015 Arkansas law effectively prohibited medication abortions, in which a woman can terminate an early-stage pregnancy by taking pills instead of undergoing a surgical procedure. The state law says a doctor who prescribes abortion-inducing drugs must contract with a physician who has admitting and surgical privileges at a hospital designated to handle any emergencies. Arkansas in court papers argued that the requirement promoted good medical practices and follow-up treatment. (Kendall, 5/29)
The Hill:
Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Arkansas Abortion Law
“Protecting the health and well-being of women and the unborn will always be a priority,” Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) said Tuesday after the Supreme Court decision. “We are a pro-life state and always will be as long as I am Attorney General.” Planned Parenthood had argued the law was strikingly similar to a measure in Texas that the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. That law required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, a requirement the court said constituted an undue burden on abortion access. (Wheeler, 5/29)
KCUR:
Supreme Court Decision May Jeopardize Medication Abortions In Missouri
Planned Parenthood challenged the Arkansas law as medically unnecessary, and a federal judge blocked it from taking effect. But a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, saying the lower court had failed to tally the number of women burdened by the statute. The Supreme Court’s unwillingness to review the Eighth Circuit’s holding leaves the law in place and will make Arkansas the first state in the nation to ban medication abortions. (Margolies, 5/29)
In other news from the Supreme Court —
Modern Healthcare:
Supreme Court Ruling Could Ease Wage Lawsuits Against Healthcare Employers
A U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing employers to require workers to sign individual arbitration agreements could sharply reduce class-action lawsuits against healthcare companies claiming violations of federal and state rules on wages, hours, and sexual and racial discrimination. In a 5-4 decision last week on three consolidated cases, the high court held that companies can include clauses in employment contracts that require employees to resolve disputes through individual arbitration, barring them from banding together to seek relief for common issues. The decision could affect about 25 million employees. (Meyer and Arndt, 5/29)
