Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services v. Abbott
951 F. Supp. 2d 891
W.D. Tex.2013Background
- HB2 (abortion-regulation act) enacted July 12, 2013, effective Oct 29, 2013, in Texas.
- Plaintiffs Planned Parenthood entities and abortion providers sue on behalf of themselves, physicians, and patients seeking to enjoin certain provisions.
- Court applies Casey/Stenberg undue-burden framework: pre-viability regulation must not place substantial obstacle; post-viability regulation may regulate for health of mother.
- Planned Parenthood has standing to challenge the act.
- Court holds hospital admitting-privileges provision fails rational-basis review and imposes an undue burden, enjoining it.
- Medications provisions largely pass undue-burden analysis, except where medication abortion is medically necessary for the mother's life/health, where enforcement is enjoined; FDA protocol is more burdensome than off-label protocol, but the latter remains safe and viable in many cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do hospital admitting privileges bear a rational relation to state interests pre-viability? | Planned Parenthood argues no rational basis and undue burden. | State asserts patient safety and continuity of care justify admitting privileges. | Unconstitutional; lacks rational-basis and imposes undue burden. |
| Are medication-abortion restrictions constitutional pre-viability? | Planned Parenthood argues off-label protocol is safer/effective; FDA protocol unduly burdens some patients. | State contends FDA protocol is medically sound and within its regulatory power; viable alternatives exist. | Generally constitutional; not an undue burden except for cases where surgical abortion poses unacceptable health risks, where an exception applies. |
| Is the term 'active admitting privileges' unconstitutionally vague? | Planned Parenthood contends vagueness harms notice and enforcement. | State contends terms are clear enough. | Not vague; ordinary-intelligence standard satisfied. |
| Does the act include a health exception for life/health-of-the-mother scenarios in medication abortion? | Off-label use should be permitted when medically necessary for health or life. | FDA protocol and regulations govern medical standards; broad health exception implied but enforcement allowed. | Off-label protocol permissible when necessary for life/health; FDA protocol burden not per se invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (constitutional framework for abortion rights pre-viability)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (undue-burden standard and viability framework)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (U.S. 2007) (rational-basis and permissible-regulation framework for abortion)
- Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (U.S. 2000) (undue-burden balancing and state interest in fetal life)
- Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (U.S. 2006) (health exception and medical necessity considerations in abortion regulation)
- City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (U.S. 1983) (health-life exception and reasonableness of regulatory burdens)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (U.S. 2007) (reiterated permissibility of regulating medical procedures with alternatives available)