Edwards v. Beck
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75277
E.D. Ark.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are physicians at Little Rock Family Planning Services challenging Arkansas Act 301 (Heartbeat Protection Act) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- Act 301 requires heartbeat testing and written disclosures before abortion and bans abortions after a detectable heartbeat at 12 weeks unless certain exceptions apply.
- Act defines viability as a medical condition beginning with a detectable heartbeat, contrary to prior Arkansas law and standard viability definitions.
- The Act allows criminal and licensure consequences for physicians performing pre-viability abortions without broad exceptions.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief; a preliminary injunction was granted after a bench hearing.
- Court will assess likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest under Dataphase standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Act 301's 12-week heartbeat ban violates the Fourteenth Amendment. | Edwards/Act 301 limits pre-viability rights. | Board argues allowed under Gonzales as-applied challenge. | Likely to prevail on merits; unconstitutional facially as to pre-viability rights. |
| Whether Plaintiffs show irreparable harm without injunction. | Patients will be denied constitutionally protected abortions. | State interest in protecting potential life supports the ban. | Irreparable harm established; injunction appropriate. |
| Whether the balance of harms favors plaintiffs. | Status quo preserves rights without harming public health. | Enforcement would protect public health and fetal life. | Harms to plaintiffs outweigh, justifying injunction. |
| Whether the public interest supports granting the injunction. | Protecting constitutional rights serves public interest. | Public interest favors enforcement of health regulations. | Public interest favors injunction. |
| Whether Act 301 is likely to pass scrutiny under the undue-burden standard. | Act 301 creates substantial obstacle for many pre-viability abortions. | Regulation aimed at informed choice; not undue burden. | Act 301 imposes an undue burden; likely unconstitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (establishes right to abortion balanced against state's interests)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (viability as critical line; undue-burden standard applied for pre-viability regulations)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (as-applied challenge appropriate where medical uncertainty exists)
- Planned Parenthood v. Miller (8th Cir.), 63 F.3d 1452 (1995) (undue-burden standard applied to facial challenges to abortion laws)
- Planned Parenthood of Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008) (undue-burden framework for facial challenges to abortion restrictions)
- Planned Parenthood Sioux Falls Clinic v. Miller, 63 F.3d 1452 (1995) (abortion regulation analysis under undue burden)