Supreme Court Denies Review Of Several Abortion-Related Cases

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Litigation / Medical Malpractice
Article Date: 08 Oct 2008 - 5:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday indicated that it will not review several abortion-related rulings by lower courts, including a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that state law does not require a physician to tell a woman that a first-trimester abortion would result in the "killing of an existing human being," BNA Health Care Daily reports. In September 2007 the state Supreme Court ruled in Acuna v. Turkish that a state appellate court was incorrect in ruling that it was a jury question whether the woman, Rosa Acuna, received sufficient information prior to receiving an abortion from physician Sheldon Turkish (BNA Health Care Daily, 10/7).

According to court papers, Turkish in 1996 told Acuna, who was eight weeks' pregnant, that she had to undergo an "immediate abortion" because her pregnancy was causing damage to her kidneys. Acuna charges that Turkish "incorrectly told [her] ... that she was not aborting a human life" when she underwent the procedure, adding that she has experienced psychological trauma -- including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and psychosexual dysfunction -- as a result of the abortion.

A trial judge previously dismissed the case, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a "fetus is not a person," but an appellate court ruled that Acuna could sue for damages involving "a question of medical malpractice" (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 10/2/07). The state Supreme Court ruling said that Acuna failed to demonstrate that Turkish withheld information that a "reasonably prudent pregnant woman in like circumstances" would have considered important in her decision whether to have an abortion. The court added, "Clearly, there is no consensus in the medical community or society supporting [the] plaintiff's position that a six- to eight-week-old embryo is, as a matter of biological fact -- as opposed to a moral, theological or philosophical judgment -- 'a complete, separate, and irreplaceable human being' or that terminating an early pregnancy involves 'actually killing an existing human being.'"

The U.S. Supreme Court also denied review of the case in October 2007 (BNA Health Care Daily, 10/7).

Case Involving Prisoner Transportation for Abortion

According to a release from the antiabortion group Americans United for Life, the Supreme Court on Tuesday also denied review in the case Roe v. Crawford, in which a court ruled that Missouri must transport a female inmate to have an abortion per her request (AUL release, 10/6).

The Missouri Department of Corrections in July 2005 adopted a policy barring the use of tax dollars to transport prisoners to undergo abortions. Attorneys for a state prison inmate -- identified as "Jane Roe" in court papers -- filed a lawsuit in October 2005 asking a federal court to order the corrections department to transport the woman to a clinic for an abortion. U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple agreed to the request.

Attorneys for the Missouri Office of the Attorney General unsuccessfully appealed the ruling to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. The woman was about 17 weeks' pregnant and had been seeking an abortion for about seven weeks before she received one. The American Civil Liberties Union later filed for a federal ruling to make the Jane Roe decision applicable to all pregnant women in the state, which Whipple agreed to in July 2006 (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/18/06).

'Wanted' Posters Case

For the third time, the Supreme Court denied review of a challenge to a ruling requiring anti abortion advocates in Oregon who had used "wanted" posters to identify abortion providers to pay millions of dollars, the AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports (AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 10/6). In 1999, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon, an Oregon abortion clinic and four Oregon doctors who had been depicted on the posters filed suit against the posters' creators -- 13 individuals and two groups, the American Coalition of Life Activists and Advocates for Life Ministries, that oppose abortion rights had won a ruling under federal racketeering laws and the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act, which prohibits using force or threats to prevent access to abortion clinics. The plaintiffs said the posters constituted a threat of violence, adding that four doctors who had been depicted in the posters subsequently were shot and killed.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2002 ruled that the posters and the related Nuremberg Files Web site, which published the names and addresses of abortion providers and then crossed them out if they had been killed, are not protected forms of free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 5/2/06). A Portland, Ore., jury in 1999 ruled that the defendants must pay the clinics and physicians more than $100 million for violating the federal laws, but that amount was later reduced to about $16 million. The Supreme Court also denied appeals in the case, American Coalition of Life Activists v. Planned Parenthood, in 2003 and 2006 (AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 10/6).

'Choose Life' License Plate Case

The Supreme Court will not consider an appeal of a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that requires Arizona to issue specialty "choose life" license plates requested by an antiabortion group, the AP/Google.com reports. Under Arizona law, if a request for a specialty license plate is approved by a state license plate commission, the applicant either must submit 200 requests for the plate or provide money for the state to produce it.

The commission rejected without comment an application by the Arizona Life Coalition to issue "choose life" plates. A spokesperson for Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) later said the proposed plates entailed a "very contentious and divisive issue that is not appropriate for a license plate. The 9th Circuit Court had ruled that the state commission's ruling violated the Arizona Life Coalition's constitutional right to free speech. According to the AP/Google.com, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee are among other states that provide "choose life" plates (Davenport, AP/Google.com, 10/6).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.