New abortion law to remain blocked
Federal appeals court upheld judge’s injunction
Tennessee’s strict abortion restrictions passed in 2020 will remain blocked after a ruling from a federal appeals court Friday.
Gov. Bill Lee signed a wide-ranging bill last summer putting in place some of the nation’s restrictive abortion measures, including one that seeks to block the procedure at a gestational stage as early as six weeks or if the doctor knows the patient is seeking an abortion due to the fetus’ sex, race or Down syndrome diagnosis.
Less than an hour after Lee signed it in July 2020, Middle Tennessee District Judge William L. Campbell issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the law from taking effect.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday agreed with Campbell.
“Although this circuit’s recent — and alarming — decisions have broadened the extent to which the government may impede a person’s constitutional right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term, the law remains clear that if a regulation is a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion, it is invalid,” the majority wrote in an opinion filed Friday.
“Any decision to overturn the district court’s finding of facts and well-reasoned decision would cast this court in the role of judicial activists.”
Senior Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey penned the opinion, and was joined by Judge Karen Nelson Moore. Moore has recently filed sharp dissents to her colleagues over decisions on other abortion cases.
Judge Amul R. Thapar joined in part. But he also gave a dissent, arguing the U.S. Supreme Court’s foundational 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade is the wrong way to decide the question of abortion access.
The “ban on abortions after a heartbeat is detected cannot stand under the Supreme Court’s abortion precedents,” Thapar wrote. “But those precedents are wrong.
“The Roe/casey framework cannot be justified under the original meaning of the Constitution. Nor can it be justified under a living constitutional approach. And on top of that, the framework has proven unworkable in practice,” Thapar wrote. “Nonetheless, my role as a lower court judge requires that I concur in the judgment.”
Reproductive providers, including the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and other abortion rights groups filed a lawsuit against the bill in federal court in Nashville in June 2020 after the bill passed the Senate 23-5 in a middle-of-thenight vote.
In addition to banning abortions after the point a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is as early as six weeks, the legislation includes a provision known as “cascading bans” that trigger follow-up blocks at intervals up to a 24week gestational age.
Friday’s ruling affirms Campbell’s decision to enjoin that entire section of law, including the cascading ban.
The “reason ban” was allowed to go into effect last November following a panel ruling from the same appellate court; it was once again enjoined by Friday’s ruling.
“Today’s ruling affirms that abortion remains safe and legal in Tennessee, even in the midst of a national, coordinated attack on abortion rights. We trust our patients to make their own, fully informed reproductive health care decisions. We are thankful that the court ruled to protect that trust and ensure that we can continue to provide expert, compassionate abortion care in our state,” Ashley Coffield, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and North Mississippi, said in an emailed statement Friday afternoon.
Abortion legal battle ongoing
Friday’s ruling comes after the U.S. Supreme Court last week allowed a new Texas law, which also bans abortion after a gestational six weeks, to go into effect. That law allows private citizens to sue to enforce the abortion restrictions.
Antiabortion activists nationwide celebrated the news, viewing it as an attack on the framework of Roe.
“We take note that state legislatures recently have passed more anti-abortion regulations than perhaps at any other time in this country’s history,” the appellate majority wrote Friday. “However, this development is not a signal to the courts to change course. It is, in fact, just the opposite. The judiciary exists as a check on majoritarian rule. It has a duty to protect the Constitutional rights, including privacy and bodily autonomy, of those within its borders, even — or especially — if the relevant class of people “has [ ] been subjected to a ‘tradition of disfavor’ by our laws.’”
A representative for the Tennessee Attorney General’s Office said their office was “disappointed” in the court’s decision and plans to seek further review of the case.
Reach reporter Mariah Timms at mtimms@tennessean.com or 615-2598344 and on Twitter @Mariahtimms.