Skip to main content

Mississippi's only abortion clinic is TRAPed

The state of Mississippi has enacted a classic "TRAP" law and it might shut down the state's only abortion clinic.

A TRAP law is a targeted regulation of an abortion provider-- essentially, imposing regulatory requirements on an abortion clinic that the clinic cannot meet. Instead of directly outlawing abortion, one regulates abortion providers out of existence. The regulations are framed as common sense medical protections for the women that would receive abortions. This is a popular conceit and a favorite of pro-life activists, who charge that the uncaring abortion industry injures many women through shoddy medical practices.

Mississippi's version would achieve its intended effect by requiring all abortion doctors operating in the state to have hospital privileges, on the premise that this would be useful in case a problem occurred during the abortion procedure that would require a women to receive emergency or follow-up treatment at a hospital. 

The problem is that no hospital around the targeted clinic, in Jackson, will offer abortion doctors admitting privileges. 

This kind of regulation strikes me as clearly unconstitutional, for two reasons. One, these regulations are simply unnecessary. Doctors at abortion clinics do encounter complications on occasion and commit outright malpractice on occasion. What is not clear is that the nature of their work-- abortions-- leads to a greater proportion of patients encountering problems requiring hospitalization than doctors performing similarly dangerous/not-dangerous medical procedures in clinic settings. 

Two, everyone knows that the true motivation for Mississippi's law is to shut down the Jackson clinic. My reading of the Casey case (the 1992 Supreme Court decision that updated and modified Roe v. Wade) is that regulations that place a substantial obstacle in the path of women attempting to obtain an abortion, primarily to make acquiring an abortion more difficult, are unconstitutional. 

Advocates for the TRAP law at issue, like state representative Sam Mims, have not done a great job of sticking to the talking points:
"We're protecting the health of women by giving them professional care," he said.
Okay, that's not bad. But then this:
"I believe life begins at conception and I think a lot of Mississippians do as well. If this legislation causes less abortion, then that's a good thing," Mims added. (Source: CNN)
What do you think is the primary purpose of the law?

A federal district court judge imposed a temporary injunction against the law in July of this year. At the same time, however, the state was allowed to continue developing administrative regulations and procedures that would be used if the law is ultimately judged constitutional. While the lawsuit on constitutionality proceeds, it appears that Mississippi is ready with its regulations to shut down the clinic, as the clinic has failed to meet the administrative requirements. So the immediate question is if the federal district court will grant another temporary injunction, keeping the clinic open, until the status of the law is fully resolved.

Links:

Article at CNN (the page also includes links to other articles plus video reports) (November 28, 2012): Mississippi's only abortion clinic faces threat of shutdown 

Article at CNN that provides a more detailed description of the earlier injunction fight (July 13, 2012): Mississippi's sole abortion clinic can stay open for now

Federal District Court order providing a partial injunction against the Mississippi TRAP law: Jackson Women's Health Organization v. Currier, No. 3:12cv436-DPJ-FKB (SD Mississippi 2012)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

Asking Pope Francis to reexamine abortion

Philosopher Gary Gutting, who always writes something interesting for The Stone column in The New York Times , recently asked if Pope Francis might reconsider the Catholic Church's traditional absolutist opposition to abortion. In doing so, Gutting makes a case for a kind of minimalist justification for abortion-- that is, abortion is immoral in most circumstances but there are a few cases where abortion is justified (in the case of rape, for example).  For that reason, the column makes for informative reading. Still, Gutting puts the cart before the horse: how and why would Pope Francis review the Church's view on abortion before reexamining its even-more-restrictive view of artificial contraception?  Anything can happen, of course, but Pope Francis has not really indicated a willingness to reconsider the doctrine of the Church on sex, conception, and abortion. Everything I have read from and about Francis is that he is advocating for a change of tone and emphas...