Overview of legislation and litigation involving protections against down syndrome discrimination abortion charlotte lozier institute gas gas

#############

District Court. In Planned Parenthood of Ind. Ky., Inc. v. Comm’r, Ind. State Dep’t of Health, 265 F. Supp. 3d 859, (S.D. Ind. 2017), the Court held that “the very notion that, pre-viability, a State can examine the basis for a woman’s choice to make this private, personal and difficult decision grade 6 electricity project ideas, if she at some point earlier decided she wants a child as a general matter, is inconsistent with the notion of a right rooted in privacy concerns and a liberty right to make independent decisions.” [26]

Circuit Court. In Planned Parenthood of Ind. Ky., Inc. v. Comm’r of the Ind. State Dep’t of Health, 888 F.3d 300 (7th Cir. 2018), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court ruling. The circuit court upheld the injunction, while stating that “PPINK and the State agree that the rate of women seeking an abortion due to the diagnosis or potential diagnosis of a genetic disability will likely increase as these tests become more widespread.” [27] The circuit court rejected the state’s argument that the viability standard protects “a woman’s ‘binary choice’ of whether or not to have a child prior to viability,” not the ability to decide whether to abort a specific child. [28]

Judge Frank A. Easterbrook wrote an opinion dissenting from the denial en banc that was joined by Judges Diane S. Sykes, Amy Coney Barrett, and Michael B. Brennan. Easterbrook stated that “[u]sing abortion to promote eugenic goals is morally and prudentially debatable on grounds different from those that underlay the statutes Casey considered.” [29] Judge Easterbrook and the other dissenting judges insisted that “[w]e ought not impute to the Justices decisions they have not made about problems they have not faced.” [30]

District Court. In Ohio’s Southern District, United States gas stoichiometry District Judge Timothy S. Black held in Pre-Term Cleveland v. Lance Himes, 294 F. Supp. 3d 746 (S.D. Oh. 2018) that Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2919.10 “violates the right to privacy of every woman in Ohio and is unconstitutional on its face.” [32] Judge Black held that the federal viability standard “is the law of the land.” [33] Quoting the holding in Planned Parenthood of Ind. Ky., Inc. v. Comm’r, Ind. State Dep’t of Health, 265 F. Supp. 3d 859 (S.D. Ind. 2017), Judge Black argued that “it is a woman’s right to choose an abortion that is protected, which, of course, leaves no room for the State to examine, let alone prohibit, the basis or bases upon which a woman makes her choice.” [34] Judge Black stated that the State’s interests in “preventing discrimination and protecting the Down syndrome community” “simply rephrase the State’s interest in potential life, which the Supreme Court has already held does not become compelling under the law until viability.” [35]

Circuit Court. Following the holding above, the state filed an appeal before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its reply brief, the state asserted that the “state interests supporting the Antidiscrimination Law” are not irrelevant and asserted that “ Casey did not change Roe’s abortion right into an absolute.” [36] The state argued that “ Casey affirmed that Roe gas vs electric range involved balancing.” [37] This case is currently awaiting decision.

Unlike the Court in Ohio and the Courts in Indiana, the Court in June Med. Servs. LLC v. Rebekah Gee, 280 F. Supp 3d 849 (M. D. La. Nov. 16, 2017) opted not to address the issue of viability or eugenic abortion, instead arguing that another Louisiana statute not challenged in the litigation prohibited the same gestational age from being aborted regardless of the woman’s reason for doing so. [38] As a result, the Court determined that the plaintiffs did not have standing, and so avoided the issue entirely. [39]

Prior to final passage or codification, the Kentucky statute was already facing a court challenge in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. [40] That Court granted a temporary restraining order for a separately enacted statute challenged under the same court filing; however, no rulings have been issued on the Down syndrome portion of Kentucky’s enacted legislation. [41]

Arkansas introduced SB 2 on Jan. 11, 2019, which is up for passage out of the Senate on Mar. 20, 2019. [47] The bill would prohibit abortions if sought solely “on the basis of (1) a test result…(2) a prenatal diagnosis…” or “any other reason to believe that an unborn child has Down Syndrome.” [48] It also requires that a physician inquire as to any electricity prices going up test results or diagnosis before an abortion may be performed and requires that, upon an answer in the affirmative, the physician must make her aware of the law and check her medical records to see if she has had a previous abortion for the same reason. [49] The bill would subsequently require that the doctor take 14 days to obtain and review the woman’s medical records. [50]

Illinois has introduced HB 2281, which has been referred to committee but as of March 2019, it has not seen any progress. [51] The bill would prohibit abortions performed “if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking an abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or has a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome” or any other disability [52]

In the state of Mississippi another bill was introduced, the Unborn Children with Down Syndrome Abortion Ban Act., 2018 Bill Text MS S.B. 2616, with language very similar to that of the Illinois statute. [53] Unlike a number of the other bills and statutes, the violation of this provision comes with a fine or potential jail time. [54] This bill has also failed. [55]

Oklahoma’s legislation has a separate section providing that “[i]f this section is held invalid as applied to the period of pregnancy prior to viability, then it shall remain applicable to the period of pregnancy subsequent to viability.” [56] The statute also has separate sections for Down syndrome and for all other genetic abnormalities, each of which has a viability divider provision. [57] This bill has also failed to be enacted gas in oil car. [58]

Utah’s bill requires that following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, the pregnant woman must be provided with a website created and maintained by the Utah State Department of Health detailing “contact information for state and national Down syndrome organizations” during the informed consent portion of her abortion appointment. [61] The legislation further prohibits abortions “if the pregnant mother’s sole reason for the abortion is that the unborn child has electricity experiments for high school or may have Down syndrome” and contains an exception for post-viability children conceived in rape or incest or if the pregnancy compromises the health of the mother. [62] This bill has passed the Utah House of Representatives and Senate and an enrolled bill has been prepared. [63]

[25] EMW Women’s Medical Center v. Beshear, No. 3:19-cv-178-DJH (W. D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2019) (available at https://www.aclu-ky.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/sb9_restraining_order_granted.pdf); Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction, EMW Women’s Medical Center v. Beshear, No. 3:19-cv-178-DJH (W. D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2019) (available at https://www.aclu-ky.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/hb5_sb9_tro_filed.pdf).

[41] EMW Women’s Medical Center v. Beshear, No. 3:19-cv-178-DJH (W. D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2019) (available at https://www.aclu-ky.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/sb9_restraining_order_granted.pdf); Plaintiffs Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction, EMW Women’s Medical Center v. Beshear, No. 3:19-cv-178-DJH (W. D. Ky. Mar. 15, 2019) (available at https://www.aclu-ky.org/sites/default/files/field_documents/hb5_sb9_tro_filed.pdf).