Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Doctors’ group intervenes in Kansas abortion case

August 2, 2011, 3:11 p.m. Updated August 2, 2011, 5:40 p.m.

Advertisement

— A Michigan-based group of doctors opposed to abortion appealed a federal court order keeping Kansas’ restrictive new abortion rules from being enforced, even though the court has yet to grant it permission to intervene in the case.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists filed a motion to intervene in the case Monday, along with a notice of its appeal of the injunction. The group claims it has legal standing in the case because its members in Kansas are losing childbirth-related business to abortion clinics. It also says its members are placed at a competitive disadvantage because abortion providers pass along the costs of any complications or medical care after abortions to other doctors.

U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia, who issued the temporary injunction blocking the new state clinic licensing law on July 1, hasn’t yet ruled on the group’s request to intervene. But the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals put its appeal on its docket Tuesday and assigned it an appeals court number.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, whose lawyers represent the Kansas abortion providers who filed the lawsuit, said in an email that it does not see how AAPLOG can appeal the court’s decision when it is not a party in the case. It plans to oppose the motion to intervene, which it believes is groundless.

“In any case, the Court granted an appropriate injunctive based on the clear evidence that the Defendants’ actions had nothing to do with patient health or safety and everything to do with political shenanigans,” said Bonnie Scott Jones, deputy director for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We feel confident that any appeal of that ruling would be unsuccessful.”

AAPLOG said in its filing that it is appealing the temporary injunction because the state of Kansas didn’t.

Meanwhile, the Kansas attorney general’s office has said it will appeal a temporary injunction keeping state from enforcing a statute stripping Planned Parenthood of federal family planning funds. That’s a separate case.

“After appropriate consultation, the attorney general is pursuing what he believes to be the best legal strategy for each case,” Jeff Wagaman, deputy chief of staff for the attorney general’s office, said Tuesday in an email.

Richard Levy, a University of Kansas law professor, said there’s a difference between the two cases in terms of the cost to the state.

“In the injunction on the abortion clinic regulations case, it has the effect of delaying the enforcement of these regulations ... the state might want the regulations to go into place, but they are still kind of working with them and there is no direct cost or loss to the state if they don’t apply them until the process has run its course,” Levy said. “In contrast, under the injunction in the Planned Parenthood case, money that the state wants not to give to Planned Parenthood is going to Planned Parenthood.”

The state attorney’s office announced its plans to appeal the Planned Parenthood decision just hours after U.S. District Judge J. Thomas Marten issued an injunction prohibiting the statute from taking effect and ordering the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to restore federal funding to the clinic.

“Title X was not intended to be an entitlement program for Planned Parenthood. Other providers are already offering a fuller spectrum of health care for Kansas patients,” KDHE Secretary Robert Moser said Tuesday in a written statement. “This highly unusual ruling implies a private organization has a right to taxpayer subsidy. The people of Kansas disagree.”

KDHE said Tuesday that it has not decided whether it would immediately restore the Title X funding for Planned Parenthood, pending the appeal by the attorney general’s office.

Levy said he expected the appeals court to take “fairly prompt action” once the state files its appeal in the case. An appeals court decision on whether to grant a stay or not could happen within a few days or a week once it is filed.

Comments

angelbear 3 years, 4 months ago

this is crap since when does buisness have a right to say anything about peoples personal rights. you people from michigan need to kepp your butts out of kansas laws. get out out and stay out.

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

Well one thing we do know is that the abortion mill owners are not looking out for patient safety. How safe is it for a little unborn fetus to be dismembered and then destroyed--abortion is a brutal violation of human rights!- pro-life citizens believe in working within the legal system to bring it to an end. We also believe in rebuilding a culture of human life that upholds the value of each unborn child!

kansanjayhawk 3 years, 4 months ago

Supreme Court precedent has allowed doctors to intervene in some of these cases. Once again another apparent abortion sympathizer stoops to attack those of faith as being "fanatic" or "nutcase"? Can't you deal with the issue rather than demonizing your opponent? Why must you attack their religious faith when this issue can be debated apart from going that route?

ProfBob 3 years, 4 months ago

All the arguments seem to be the self-centered ethical basis of the primacy of a woman's choice versus the unprovable opinion that humanness (read soul) starts at conception. The debate on abortion is merely opinion. Moral values are based on either self-centered, God-based or society-based non-provable basic assumptions. For the Catholic viewpoint let me excerpt from the free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” (http://andgulliverreturns.info) The Abortion chapter in Book 4 elaborates the pros and cons of the 3 ethical assumptions. Let me attempt to summarize the changing Catholic position. From the 13th Century the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, that male embryos got their souls about 4 weeks after conception, females somewhat later, were the standard. His was a Christianized view of Aristotle’s ideas. The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive? Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls? If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.