WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court signaled interest in an abortion case, asking Oklahoma’s top court to clarify the reach of a state law that regulates the use of drugs to end a pregnancy.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down the measure in a three-paragraph ruling in December. It was one of three abortion laws the state court invalidated last year.
The challengers, led by the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, said the law effectively bars all drug-induced abortions. State officials say the measure only regulates abortions, by blocking drug protocols that don’t follow the instructions approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The Supreme Court asked the Oklahoma court to say whether the law bars the use of the abortion drug misoprostol, even when doctors follow an FDA-approved protocol for combining the drug with RU-486.
The high court also asked whether the Oklahoma measure blocks use of methotrexate, a cancer drug, to treat ectopic pregnancies.
The justices granted review to the case although they have the option of dismissing it after getting a response from the Oklahoma court.
In upholding the law, the Oklahoma court pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In that case, the court said states can’t place an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to end a pregnancy before the fetus would be able to live outside the womb.
The case is Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, 12-1094.
In other action Thursday,the court said it will take up a case about when victims of child pornography can recover money from people convicted of viewing their abuse.
The justices agreed to review a question that has divided lower courts: Must there be a link between the crime of viewing child pornography and the victims’ injuries before victims are entitled to restitution?
A woman identified as Amy is seeking financial payments from Texas resident Doyle Randall Paroline,who pleaded guilty to possessing between 150 and 300 images of child pornography on his computer. Amy was among the girls depicted.
Amy is seeking more than $3.3 million from Paroline to cover the cost of her lost income, attorneys’ fees and psychological care.
Last year, the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said in a 10-5 decision that victims do not have to show a link between the crime and their injuries.
Amy, now her early 20s and living in Pennsylvania, was a child when her uncle sexually abused her and widely circulated images of the abuse, according to court records. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children said it has found at least 35,000 images of Amy’s abuse in more than 3,200 child pornography cases since 1998.
In at least 174 cases, Amy has been awarded restitution in amounts ranging from $100 to more than $3.5 million. She has collected more than $1.5 million, one of her attorneys has said.
In another case involving Amy and a second woman, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out a restitution order because it found there was not a sufficient link between a man convicted of possessing child pornography and the women.
That is why Amy’s lawyers also urged the Supreme Court to hear Paroline’s appeal, in an effort to resolve the split among federal judges.
The case, Paroline v. U.S., 12-8561, will be argued in the fall or winter.
Also Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected appeals from Arizona and Nevada involving the rights of same-sex couples.
The justices let stand an appeals court ruling striking down an Arizona law that made state employees in same-sex relationships ineligible for domestic-partner benefits. The Nevada case was a challenge to the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Arizona’s constitution bans gay marriage, and a 2009 law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer repealed domestic-partner benefits for state workers. Brewer said the state was in a fiscal crisis and couldn’t afford to extend health-care benefits to employees’ dependents if they weren’t married. The state said the policy was legal because it applied to all employees, regardless of sexual orientation.
Gay-marriage proponents said the policy was discriminatory because heterosexual couples may marry to obtain benefits, while gay couples can’t under state law.
The Nevada case was originally filed on behalf of eight same-sex couples, and it argued that a 2002 state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S.Constitution by denying same-sex couples in Nevada the same rights that other married couples enjoy.
A federal judge in Reno ruled last year that the amendment was not a constitutional violation and it was upheld.
Information for this article was contributed by Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News and by Mark Sherman, Christina Silva and Matt Woolbright of The Associated Press.
Front Section, Pages 7 on 06/28/2013