Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Van Hollen
94 F. Supp. 3d 949
W.D. Wis.2015Background
- Wisconsin Act 37 (2013) required physicians performing abortions to hold hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of the clinic and imposed civil penalties and private causes of action for violations.
- Plaintiffs (Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, two PPW physicians, and Milwaukee Women’s Medical Services/AMS) challenged the law on Fourteenth Amendment liberty/privacy (undue burden), improper purpose, nondelegation, and equal protection/substantive due process grounds; district court previously enjoined enforcement and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction and remanded for merits.
- Bench trial included a court-appointed neutral OB-GYN expert and opposing experts; parties litigated safety of abortion, role of admitting privileges, hospitals’ credentialing practices, and likely effects on access in Wisconsin.
- Evidence showed abortions are very safe (low complication and hospitalization rates), most abortions occur in the first trimester, and only four clinics remained in Wisconsin; AMS provided many later-term abortions and its two physicians lacked admitting privileges within 30 miles.
- Hospitals commonly require a record of inpatient care for privileges; obtaining/maintaining privileges can take months and often depends on inpatient volume; plaintiffs showed hospitals may deny privileges for non-medical reasons and that enforcing the statute would likely close AMS and substantially reduce in‑state access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourteenth Amendment — undue burden (liberty/privacy) | Act 37 lacks medical justification, imposes substantial obstacles to abortion access (closures, delays, out‑of‑state travel), and therefore is an undue burden. | Admitting‑privileges requirement furthers women’s health (continuity of care, credentialing, peer review); rational basis or deference to legislature suffices. | The court found the State failed to show a health benefit sufficient to outweigh burdens; Act 37 imposes an undue burden and violates patients’ Fourteenth Amendment liberty/privacy rights. |
| Improper purpose | The law was enacted to restrict abortion access (no grace period, unusual civil liability, legislative history), so its purpose is improper under Casey. | The State asserts a health/regulatory purpose for women’s safety. | The court found strong evidence of improper purpose (and that the purpose included creating a substantial obstacle) and held the Act unconstitutional on that basis. |
| Nondelegation / due process | Delegating the power to grant or deny practice eligibility to private hospitals (with varying, nonuniform criteria and no state waiver/appeal) unlawfully delegates state power and lacks adequate oversight. | Hospitals act under neutral bylaws; statutory mechanisms suffice; denials are for legitimate reasons. | The court held the Act unconstitutionally delegates by making private hospitals gatekeepers without adequate state oversight or waiver/appeal, violating procedural due process/nondelegation principles. |
| Equal protection / substantive due process | Singling out abortion providers without rational basis (not required for other outpatient procedures) is invidious and lacks legitimate justification. | The State maintains health/regulatory distinctions justify differential treatment. | The court found no rational justification and, given improper purpose evidence, concluded the Act violated equal protection and substantive due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Van Hollen, 738 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2013) (Seventh Circuit opinion affirming preliminary injunction and directing balancing analysis)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (framework for undue‑burden analysis of abortion regulations)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (constitutional right to choose pre‑viability abortion)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (U.S. 2007) (scope of permissible abortion regulations and limits on deference to legislative findings)
- City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (U.S. 1983) (invalidating hospital requirement where medical evidence did not support it)
- Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1999) (district court must balance health benefits against burdens in abortion restrictions)
- Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1976) (loss of constitutional freedoms constitutes irreparable injury)
- Preston v. Thompson, 589 F.2d 300 (7th Cir. 1978) (continuing constitutional violations constitute irreparable harm)