Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts

Wednesday, 15 June 2016

Princess Health and  Court of Appeals orders Lexington abortion clinic closed for now. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Court of Appeals orders Lexington abortion clinic closed for now. Princessiccia

By Al Cross
Kentucky Health News

Reversing a lower court's ruling Wednesday, the Kentucky Court of Appeals said Lexington's only location for legal abortions must stop performing them pending a lawsuit by the state that seeks to require it to be licensed as an abortion facility.

Fayette Circuit Judge Ernesto Scorsone declined in March to issue an injunction to close EMW Women�s Clinic on Burt Road, saying that the state failed to show that it was likely to win its lawsuit and that allowing it to stay open in the meantime would cause any irreparable injury. He found that the clinic was operating legally, and closing it would be �against the public interest� because it is the only clinic that routinely provides abortion services in the eastern half of the state and the right to an abortion is constitutionally protected.

But the facility is licensed as a physician's office, not as an abortion clinic, and a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals, all of them women, unanimously agreed with the administration of Gov. Matt Bevin that it needs the latter license to operate legally. The judges said Scorsone had misinterpreted the licensing requirements and didn't give proper weight to the evidence, which was that all the clinic does is perform abortions and related procedures.

The clinic's owner, Dr. Ernest Marshall of Louisville, testified that the Lexington business "originated as a doctor's office" but has narrowed its line of work in recent years, especially after his partner died in December 2013. He said it was a simple facility compared to his EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, which is licensed as an abortion facility and performed 2,773 abortions last year compared to 411 at the Lexington facility, which does abortions only in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Scorsone said Marshall "has a strong argument" that he didn't need an abortion license because the Cabinet for Health and Family Services reached that conclusion after its last previous inspection in 2006 and the clinic doesn't have $1.5 million worth of equipment, at which point an abortion-clinic license is required. But the appeals court pointed out that state law says an abortion facility is "any place in which an abortion is performed" and "We see no reason why an exemption determination should be determinative a decade later," after the nature of the facility had changed.

The appeals court said Scorsone also erred in saying denial of an injunction wouldn't cause irreparable injury, because the cabinet and the citizens would be harmed "if the cabinet is not allowed to correct the alleged violations of its licensing requirements." It said that is a legal presumption that Marshall could have rebutted but did not. It also cited the cabinet's latest inspection, which found "expired medications, defective equipment, [a] torn examination table and dust accumulation."

In granting the injunction prohibiting abortions at the facility, the court said "There is a substantial legal issue as to whether EMW Lexington qualifies as a private physician's office, where it performed only abortions in the last year."

As for the availability of abortions in the eastern half of the state, the three judges said Marshall presented no evidence regarding "the location of the women EMW Lexington serves" and noted that it refers women past the 12th week of pregnancy to its Louisville facility. "As the cabinet points out, this case is not about a woman's right to an abortion," Judge Allison Jones wrote.  "The cabinet is not seeking to prevent women from obtaining abortions [but] to enforce its right to regulate the manner in which abortions are performed in this commonwealth." Judges Sara Combs and Debra Lambert joined in the opinion.

Saturday, 19 March 2016

Princess Health and  Judge denies Bevin's bid to close Lexington abortion provider, citing difficulty that would create for Eastern Ky. women. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Judge denies Bevin's bid to close Lexington abortion provider, citing difficulty that would create for Eastern Ky. women. Princessiccia

UPDATE, June 15: A three-judge panel of the state Court of Appeals reversed the ruling.

A Lexington judge has rejected Gov. Matt Bevin's request to close the city's only abortion facility, saying that it is operating legally and that closing it would restrict access to abortions by residents of Eastern Kentucky.

Circuit Judge Ernesto Scorsone said Friday that he wouldn't issue an injunction to close EMW Women�s Clinic on Burt Road because the state failed to show that it is likely to win its lawsuit or that allowing it to stay open in the meantime would cause any irreparable injury.

�In addition to the evidence indicating that EMW is operating legally and in conformity with the most important regulations of a licensed abortion facility, closing the clinic is against the public interest,� Scorsone wrote. �EMW is the only physician�s office that routinely provides abortion services in the Eastern half of the state, and both parties agree that a right to an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy is constitutionally protected. Closing EMW would have a severe, adverse impact on the women in the eastern part of the state.�

The clinic's attorney, Scott White, said it only performs first-trimester abortions and would reopen next week. It had closed in response to the lawsuit because of potential fines. Bevin spokeswoman Jessica Ditto said the administration would take the case to the state Court of Appeals.

The state claims the clinic needs to be licensed as an abortion clinic because that is all it does.

At a hearing Wednesday, "Clinic owner Ernest Marshall said the clinic used to do more regular gynecological health care, and is open to doing more, but he said that since his partner died a few years ago, the clinic�s primary work is abortions," Linda Blackford reports for the Lexington Herald-Leader. "On Feb. 17, state inspectors with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services visited the clinic, where they reported that employees told them the clinic only performs abortions. Inspectors also found dirty conditions and expired medicine."

Scorsone wrote that he was sure the clinic would address those issues, which typically do not lead to efforts to shut down medical facilities. He wrote, �The uncontroverted testimony presented at the hearing is that it is within the standard of care to perform first trimester abortions in a doctor�s office and that these procedures are less dangerous than others routinely performed in an office setting. The procedures used do not require sedation or the services of an anesthesiologist, factors that indicate EMW is a private physician�s office exempt from the licensing requirements for ambulatory surgical centers.�

"Scorsone said that the facility is already in compliance with the two most important requirements of an abortion clinic � that it has in place a transfer agreement with a hospital and a transportation agreement with an ambulance service in case there are complications with a procedure," Joseph Gerth reports for The Courier-Journal.

The clinic performed 411 of the 3,187 abortions reported to state officials last year. Most (2,773) were done by the EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, which Marshall owns.

"The Bevin administration has targeted abortion clinics for regulatory action in the first months of his term," Gerth notes. "In February, he sought to block Planned Parenthood from offering abortions at a new clinic it opened in Louisville." That clinic has suspended abortions while the suit proceeds.

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

Princess Health and Religious business owners and corporations have filed half the lawsuits over health reform mandate to cover contraception.Princessiccia

By Molly Burchett
Kentucky Health News

Some religious business owners are filing suit against the government, saying the health-reform law violates the constitutional freedom of religion by mandating employee contraceptive and abortion-inducing drug coverage; the lawsuits are expected to land in the U.S. Supreme Court, and a case filed by Hobby Lobby is the first of this kind to be heard by a federal appeals court.

Challenges to the mandate that will require businesses with more than 50 employees to provide no-cost coverage of all contraceptives, sterilization procedures, plus education and counseling, are not just coming from Catholic entities with a religious, moral objection to contraception. About half of the cases have been filed by corporations, reports Robert Barnes of The Washington Post.

There are now 60 cases involving 190 individuals representing hospitals, universities, businesses, schools and people opposed to the mandate, says the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. The Becket Fund maps the cases, as shown below; for the interactive version, click here.

Since the law mandates contraceptive coverage, groups such as Catholic bishops have accused the Obama administration of waging war on religious liberty, reports Barnes. In February, the administration announced an exemption for faith-based organizations from covering employees' contraception costs because the conceptions would be covered by a third party. Self-insured organizations like Catholic schools sued, arguing that the accommodation would not apply to them because there is no third-party insurer to cover contraception. But those cases have been dismissed in court because such organizations are given a one-year grace period to comply with the mandate, reports Laura Bassett of the Huffington Post.

Businesses don't qualify for faith-based exemption from mandates

Hobby Lobby's David and Barbara Green

Business do not meet the new exemption either, because they are not religious organizations. However, some businesses like Hobby Lobby, which was founded and is still owned by an evangelical Christian family that believes life begins at conception and already covers contraceptives through existing employee health coverage, are fighting the law's mandate to cover abortion-inducing drugs or devices, like morning-after and week-after pills.

"They ought to be able � just like a church, just like a charity � to have the right to opt out of a provision that infringes on their religious beliefs," said Kyle Duncan, who argued the case Thursday before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of the Green family, and a sister company, Christian booksellers Mardel Inc, reports The Associated Press.

Other suits have been filed by religious business owners of diverse enterprises, from a company that makes wooden cabinets to owners of Panera Bread restaurants, reports Barnes, but all the cases base their arguments on the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion and on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The Hobby Lobby case also specifies that the mandate violates freedom of speech and the Administrative Procedure Act because it was imposed without prior notice or sufficient time for public comment.

In the early stages of litigation, lower courts have split on the issue. Some have rejected Hobby Lobby's request for an exemption to the mandate, and requests by other businesses for a temporary injunction, saying for-profit businesses aren't covered by the faith-based exemption. However, courts in St. Louis and the Seventh Circuit have granted temporary injunctions. (Read more)