Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services v. Abbott
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22231
5th Cir.2013Background
- HB2 in Texas imposed hospital admitting-privileges for abortion providers and restricted abortion-inducing drugs to FDA protocol with limited exceptions.
- District court held hospital-privileges provision unconstitutional on rational-basis grounds but upheld FDA protocol restrictions except where medical judgment required an off-label approach.
- District court enjoined the hospital-privileges provision in its entirety and partially enjoined the medication abortion provisions.
- State appealed the district court’s injunction, seeking a stay pending appeal given HB2 was to take effect October 29, 2013.
- Court grants stay in part pending appeal and addresses merits: hospital-privileges provision likely rationally based and not an undue burden; health-exception scope revision for medication abortions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hospital-admitting-privileges regulation has a rational basis and undue-burden effect | Planned Parenthood—no rational basis; undue burden on women | State—regulation serves health and professional-ethics objectives | Strong likelihood State will prevail on merits; rational basis shown; not an undue burden |
| Whether facial challenge to hospital-admitting-privileges provision succeeds | Regulation creates substantial obstacle before viability | Regulation serves legitimate interests and does not facially create substantial obstacle | Facial challenge not proven to defeat regulation; likelihood of success on merits remains |
| Scope of FDA protocol vs off-label mifepristone use and district court health exception | PP sought entire off-label protocol; health-exception needed | State may limit to FDA protocol; health-exception not necessary | Health exception broader than needed; partial stay of injunction preserves 50–63 day window with medical-judgment exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (state may regulate medical profession; undue-burden standard applied to abortion)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (states may require physicians to perform abortions only by licensed professionals)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (undue-burden framework for abortion regulations; viability context)
- City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983) (facial challenge standards; undue burden considerations)