Arkansas' three abortion clinics, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, on Wednesday filed a federal lawsuit challenging three newly passed abortion laws that are scheduled to go into effect statewide on July 24.
The lawsuit, assigned to U.S. District Judge Billy Roy Wilson, seeks a preliminary restraining order to prevent Acts 493, 619 and 700, all of 2019, from being enforced until their constitutionality is decided. It also seeks a permanent injunction to block the state from ever enforcing the laws.
The laws "would outlaw and severely restrict abortion access in the state," according to a news release issued on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Act 493 bans abortions in Arkansas after 18 weeks of pregnancy except in medical emergencies and in cases of rape or incest.
Act 619 prohibits post-viability abortions related to fetal diagnoses of Down syndrome. Post-viability abortions are those obtained after a fetus is capable of living independently outside the womb, generally at 24 to 28 weeks of pregnancy.
Act 700 requires doctors performing abortions to be board-certified or eligible for board certification in obstetrics and gynecology, and it amends the definition of viability to include the reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus with or without artificial life support. The plaintiffs say the requirement prohibits qualified physicians from providing safe, legal abortion, thereby severely limiting the pool of available abortion providers in the state and burdening access to care.
"In recent years," the lawsuit asserts, "Arkansas has engaged in a targeted campaign against abortion, enacting more than 25 laws aimed at obstructing and interfering with women's access to abortion care in the state, including at least 12 enacted in 2019 alone."
The three laws being challenged "fly directly in the face of longstanding Supreme Court precedent and are the latest in Arkansas's unrelenting campaign to deny women the health care they seek and to which they are entitled," it says.
Without relief from the court, the suit says, the recently enacted restrictions "will have a devastating effect on women seeking access to abortion in the state."
The suit was filed on behalf of Little Rock Family Planning Services, which provides medication and surgical abortions in Little Rock, and Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which operates clinics in Little Rock and Fayetteville that provide medication abortions. Other plaintiffs are Dr. Stephanie Ho, a board-certified family medicine physician who provides medication abortions at the Fayetteville clinic, but isn't a board-certified obstetrician or gynecologist, and Dr. Thomas Tvedten, part-owner and medical director of Little Rock Family Planning clinic who provides surgical and medication abortions, and also is not board-certified or board-eligible in obstetrics and gynecology.
The defendants are Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, as the state's chief prosecutor; Larry Jegley and Matt Durrett, prosecuting attorneys in Pulaski and Washington counties, respectively, who would be responsible for enforcing the laws in the counties where the clinics operate; Sylvia D. Simon, chairman of the Arkansas State Medical Board; the board's 13 members; and Nathaniel Smith, in his capacity as director of the state Department of Health.
Rutledge said Wednesday evening that "I am reviewing the lawsuit filed today to decide appropriate next steps. As attorney general, it is my duty and honor to defend the sanctity of life and protect mothers and their unborn children."
Holly Dickson, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas, said the "dangerously extreme bans and restrictions" enacted by Arkansas lawmakers "are part of a nationwide effort to criminalize abortion, while punishing providers and shaming families seeking care. Personal medical decisions should be made by families in consultation with their health providers, not dictated by politicians trying to force people to remain pregnant against their will and against medical advice."
Lori Williams, director of Little Rock Family Planning, said the clinic's patients deserve "quality care based on sound medical science, not politically motivated laws that intrude on their personal medical decisions."
She said the clinic is "deeply concerned about the impact of these laws on our patients and their health. Far from protecting people's health and safety, these medically unnecessary restrictions would reduce our patients' access to care.
"It's important for Arkansans to know," Williams continued, "that abortion is still legal, and as this lawsuit proceeds we are committed to continuing to provide our patients with the full range of reproductive health services, including abortion care."
The lawsuit notes that the abortion bans -- Acts 493 and 619 -- stand in direct conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, by outright banning abortion before viability. It says that Act 700 violates the Supreme Court's ruling in Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt by imposing significant burdens on abortion access with no countervailing medical or health benefit.
Meagan Burrows, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in the plaintiffs' news release that the "medically unnecessary restrictions" imposed by anti-abortion Arkansas lawmakers is part of a national strategy to push abortion out of reach and stigmatize reproductive health care.
"We will not stand by and let politicians attack the health and well-being of Arkansans for their own political gain," Burrows said.
Brandon J. Hill, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said that "preventing qualified physicians from providing safe, legal abortion services goes against medical evidence and sound practice."
All three laws include "stiff criminal penalties" for those who violate them, the suit states.
A violation of the 18-week ban is a Class D felony, punishable by up to six years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. A physician who violates the ban is subject to mandatory license suspension or revocation by the medical board.
A violation of what the lawsuit calls the "Reason Ban," Act 619, is also a Class D felony that requires revocation of a doctor's medical license and allows the physician to be held liable in a civil lawsuit filed on behalf of any woman who has the procedure without being informed of the prohibition. The OB/GYN requirement also subjects physicians who violate it to be charged with a Class D felony.
Unless the court provides relief, the lawsuit says, all three laws will require the clinics and the doctors to turn patients away, and as a result, some women will be forced to delay their access to abortion, which increases health risks, while others will have to travel hundreds of miles to obtain care while incurring the associated economic and logistical burdens. It alleges that still others will attempt to seek abortions outside the medical system, and some will be forced to carry their pregnancies to term against their will.
Metro on 06/27/2019