Federal appeals court rules in favor of abortion providers in Wisconsin case | us news

Federal appeals court rules in favor of abortion providers in Wisconsin case

24 Nov 2015 | Author: | No comments yet »

Appeals court backs rejection of abortion doctor admitting law.

A Wisconsin law that requires abortion providers to get admitting privileges at nearby hospitals is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court panel ruled Monday.

Madison— Federal appeals judges on Monday agreed with a lower court that a politically polarizing 2013 abortion law is unconstitutional, finding it endangered the health of women. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit today rejected the Walker Administration’s efforts to reinstate a restriction on access to abortion, according to Wisconsin Planned Parenthood. District Court Judge William Conley that the Governor Walker backed admitting privileges law would place an undue burden on women’s access to safe and legal abortion. During oral arguments, Judge Posner stated, “There is not a rational basis for your statute because it doesn’t provide any health benefits for women seeking abortion.” Judge Posner added that the law was designed to close down abortion clinics, had nothing to do with women’s health and was a “clear flouting of Roe vs. That amounted to restricting access to abortions in Wisconsin, they argued. “At Planned Parenthood, our top priority is patient safety,” said Teri Huyck, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. “As the court affirmed, this law does nothing to enhance the health and safety of patients.

In addition, the Wisconsin Hospital Association, the Wisconsin Public Health Association, the Wisconsin Academy of Family Physicians, the Wisconsin Association of Local Health Departments and Boards, and the Wisconsin Alliance for Women’s Health all oppose Wisconsin’s admitting privileges statute. He said the law would put more women in danger by increasing the waiting times for abortions, which could push a few procedures into the second trimester. “There are those who would criminalize all abortions, thus terminating the constitutional right asserted in Roe and Casey and a multitude of other decisions”, Posner wrote. “But what makes no sense is to abridge the constitutional right to an abortion of the basis of spurious contentions regarding women’s heath – and the abridgment challenged in this case would actually endanger women’s health”. In his dissent, Manion, also a Reagan appointee, said that the majority opinion “marks the latest chapter in our circuit’s continued misapplication of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence.” “Among other benefits, the requirement promotes continuity of care and helps to ensure that abortionists are properly credentialed and qualified,” Manion wrote. “It also works in tandem with Wisconsin’s ultrasound requirement to facilitate informed decision-making on the parts of doctor and patient alike.” The U.S. He also said that a woman who experiences complications from an abortion will go to the nearest hospital, which will treat her regardless of whether her abortion doctor has admitting privileges there. Admitting privileges allow doctors to admit patients to a hospital and treat them there, but privileges are not needed to get a patient into a hospital in emergencies.

The state does not require admitting privileges for doctors who perform other outpatient services, including those that have much higher complication rates than abortion, Posner wrote. “The requirement of admitting privileges cannot be taken seriously as a measure to improve women’s health because the transfer agreements that abortion clinics make with hospitals, plus the ability to summon an ambulance by a phone call, assure the access of such women to a nearby hospital in the event of a medical emergency,” he wrote. “Governor Walker, before he withdrew from the presidential race, said he thought abortion should be forbidden even if the mother dies,” Posner said then. “Is that kind of official Wisconsin policy?” That was a reference to comments Walker made in August, when he said that choosing between the life of a mother and a fetus was a “false choice” and that better options were always available.

Our partners
Follow us
Contact us
Our contacts

About this site