AMERICAN CIV. LIBERTIES UNION OF KANSAS v. Praeger
815 F. Supp. 2d 1204
D. Kan.2011Background
- ACLU challenged Kansas HB 2075 Sec 8(a), which bars elective abortion coverage in comprehensive health policies and requires a separate rider with actuarially calculated premium.
- The Act became effective July 1, 2011; riders must fully cover estimated elective abortion costs per enrollee.
- Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of Sec 8(a).
- Magistrate Judge Gale issued a Report recommending denial of the injunction for lack of irreparable harm evidence, which ACLU objected to.
- The District Court conducted de novo review and denied the injunction, holding the record insufficient to show likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm; it also addressed legislative purpose and rational-basis equal-protection considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sec 8(a) is unconstitutional as a substantial obstacle to pre-viability abortion. | ACLU asserts the Act was enacted to create an obstacle to abortion. | Kansas asserts rational purposes (cost, conscience) and that the Act does not necessarily impede abortion. | Plaintiff unlikely to prevail on the merits. |
| Whether plaintiffs show irreparable harm to members from loss of abortion coverage. | Violations of constitutional rights constitute irreparable harm; some members have already lost coverage. | Declarations lack foundation; irreparable harm not proven. | Irreparable harm not demonstrated; injunction denied. |
| Whether the Act violates equal protection under rational-basis review. | Prohibiting coverage for women but not men constitutes discrimination. | Law rationally furthers insurance-cost concerns; no evidence of discriminatory intent. | No likelihood of prevailing on equal-protection claim. |
| Whether plaintiff has shown likelihood of success on the merits of an unconstitutional-purpose theory. | Legislative purpose to hinder abortion. | Legislative purposes plausibly rational and not predominantly to obstruct abortion. | No clear showing that predominant unconstitutional purpose existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (right to choose abortion pre-viability; states may regulate to inform/free choice)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Penn. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (undue-burden standard; pre-viability right to abortion; informing vs hindering)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1997) (predominant legislative purpose required to strike down abortion regulation)
- Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F.3d 1112 (10th Cir. 1996) (legislative purpose to obstruct abortion may invalidate law)
- O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc; discussion of legislative purpose and irreparable harm context)
- Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (U.S. 1977) (public funding may be allocated to support childbirth over abortion without violating rights)