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

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, Pres