Sun Sentinel Palm Beach Edition
Justices refuse to block Ark. abortion restrictions
high court would quickly block the Arkansas law because, they said, it is “strikingly similar” to the Texas measure.
In their appeal, they told the justices that the restriction on drug-induced abortions was “enacted supposedly to protect women’s health (but) is medically unnecessary. If allowed to take effect, it would make Arkansas the only state to effectively ban medication abortion, a common method of early abortion that has been safely used by over two million American women since its approval in 2000. It would also leave only one remaining abortion provider in the entire state of more than 53,000 square miles.”
At issue is a provision in a 2015 law that requires a doctor who prescribes or dispenses an “abortion-inducing drug shall have a signed contract with a physician who agrees to handle complications.”
State legislators said these contract relationships are needed to make sure women receive emergency care if they encounter complications, including excessive bleeding.
Abortion-rights advocates argued this legal restriction is unnecessary as a matter of medical safety. They said complications are rare, and in such circumstances, it is best for a patient to go immediately to an emergency room, not to seek out a second doctor who may be many miles away. Further, Planned Parenthood’s lawyers say this restriction works to outlaw such abortions entirely. They say other physicians in the state have refused to enter into contracts with abortion providers. They said the law would force the closure of its abortion providers in Little Rock and Fayetteville, both of which rely on medication. A privately run facility in Little Rock would remain in business and provide surgical abortions.
Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge urged the court to turn down the appeal. She said her state’s law differs from the Texas measure. It does not require abortion doctors to have “admitting privileges” at a nearby hospital, as Texas had required, but instead says they must have a working agreement with another doctor who can handle emergencies.
On Tuesday, in response to the high court’s action, she urged the 8th Circuit Court to allow the state law to go into effect immediately.