Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services v. Abbott
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5696
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- Planned Parenthood sought declaratory judgment and to enjoin two HB 2 provisions regulating abortion in Texas.
- First provision required admitting privileges for physicians within 30 miles of the abortion facility; second required FDA protocol adherence for medication abortions with limited exceptions.
- District court enjoined admitting-privileges partially and blocked part of the medication abortion regulation; court issued a wide pre-enforcement facial invalidation.
- Court of appeals granted a partial stay; the Supreme Court denied vacating the stay.
- This court reverses and renders for the State, with one severability-based exception: admitting-privileges cannot be enforced against providers who timely applied for privileges and are awaiting a decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitting-privileges violates due process or undue-burden standards | Planned Parenthood asserts lack of rational basis and substantial burden | State shows rational basis and health-safety benefits, not a large fraction burden | Admitting-privileges uphold rational basis and not a large-burden |
| Proper application of rational-basis review for admitting-privileges | District court erred by rejecting rational-basis justification | Statutory goals tied to patient safety and continuity of care; rational basis exists | State acted within rational-basis scope; record supports health protections |
| Whether district court properly addressed purpose and effect under Casey | Provision aims to stymie access; burden on large fraction of women | No improper purpose shown; any burden not large fraction | No impermissible purpose; no undue burden shown for state-wide scope |
| Medication-abortion regulation and lack of health exception | Off-label 50–63 day window necessary; lack of health exception imposes undue burden | Gonzales framework allows no facial health exception; off-label use unproved as universally necessary | Lack of facial undue burden; as-applied challenge fails; district court erred in broad prohibition |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. (1973)) (core doctrine of right to abortion under substantive due process)
- Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. (1992)) (undue-burden standard for abortion regulations; viability framework)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (U.S. (2007)) (upholds abortion regulation framework; health exceptions not required facially)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. (1993)) (rational-basis review defers to legislative predictions)
- Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 734 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 2013) (admitting-privileges upheld as rational; severability considerations)
- Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Van Hollen, 738 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2013) (discussion of admitting-privileges within regulatory context)
- Mazur ek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (U.S. (1997)) (burden-shifting framework in abortion statutes (undue burden analysis))
- Gonzales v. Ayotte, 546 U.S. 320 (U.S. (2006)) (as-applied challenges and health-risk considerations in abortion regulation)