Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Bentley
Decision Date | 28 June 2013 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:13cv405–MHT. |
Citation | 951 F.Supp.2d 1280 |
Parties | PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTHEAST, INC., on behalf of its patients, physicians, and staff, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Robert BENTLEY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Alabama, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Validity Called into Doubt
Ala. Code 1975 §§ 26-23E-4, 26-23E-12.
Alexa Kolbi–Molinas, Andrew David Beck, Jennifer Dalven, American Civil Liberties Foundation, New York, NY, Carrie Y. Flaxman, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Washington, DC, Roger Kraus Evans, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, New York, NY, M. Wayne Sabel, Sr., Sabel & Sabel, P.C., Montgomery, AL, Randall C. Marshall, ACLU Foundation of Alabama, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew L. Brasher, John Cowles Neiman, Jr., Laura Elizabeth Howell, William G. Parker, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, Carrie Ellis McCollum, David Bryson Byrne, Jr., Office of the Governor, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants Robert Bentley, Luther Strange, Ellen Brooks, Brandon K. Falls, and Ashley Rich.
Patricia Elaine Ivie, Phillip Brian Hale, Alabama Department of Public Health, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant Donald E. Williamson.
James Robert Seale, Hill Hill Carter Franco Cole & Black, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant George C. Smith, Jr.
Wayne Paulk Turner, Wayne P. Turner, Attorney at Law, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant James E. West.Barbara Jean Wells, Chad Wesley Bryan, Capell & Howard, P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Defendant Martha Lavender.
This lawsuit challenges recent Alabama legislation that would require all physicians who perform abortions at the State's licensed abortion clinics to obtain staff privileges at a local hospital. Plaintiffs Planned Parenthood Southeast Inc., Reproductive Health Services, and June Ayers, RN, on behalf of themselves, their patients, physicians, and staff, allege that, if enacted, this legislation would violate their rights under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs have named as defendants the following state officials: Robert Bentley, in his official capacity as Governor of Alabama; Luther Strange, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Alabama; Ellen Brooks, in her official capacity as District Attorney of Montgomery County, Alabama; Brandon K. Falls, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Jefferson County, Alabama; Ashley Rich, in her official capacity as District Attorney of Mobile County, Alabama; Donald E. Williamson, MD, in his official capacity as State Health Officer of Alabama; George C. Smith, Jr., MD, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners; James E. West, MD, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Medical Licensure Commission of Alabama; and Martha Lavender, DSN, RN, in her official capacity as President of the Alabama Board of Nursing.
This matter is now before the court on the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3, 4) (civil rights). For reasons that follow, and based on the limited record now before the court, the motion for a temporary restraining order will be granted.
To demonstrate that a temporary restraining order is warranted, the plaintiffs must show: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their suit; (2) that they will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief; (3) that the harm to the plaintiffs absent an injunction would outweigh the harm to the defendants from an injunction; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir.1995); Centr. Ala. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Magee, No. 2:11cv982–MHT, 2011 WL 5878363, at *1 (M.D.Ala. Nov. 23, 2011) (Thompson, J.) (citing Grizzle v. Kemp, 634 F.3d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir.2011)).
The law at issue is § 4(c) of HB 57, the “Women's Health and Safety Act.” This provision requires that every physician who performs abortions “shall have staff privileges at an acute care hospital within the same standard metropolitan statistical area as the facility [where the physician performs abortions] is located that permit him or her to perform dilation and curettage, laparotomy procedures, hysterectomy, and any other procedures reasonably necessary to treat abortion-related complications.” HB 57, § 4(c), available at (Doc. No. 4–1) Ex. A. If an administrator of an abortion or reproductive health center were to allow his or her facility to be operated in a manner that violates the staff-privileges requirement, the administrator would be guilty of a Class C Felony, which in Alabama carries a punishment range of one to ten years imprisonment. HB 57, § 12(c); 1975 Ala.Code § 13A–5–6. The abortion or reproductive health center could also have its license revoked, HB 57, § 14(b), as could any individual physician who performs an abortion without having met the staff-privileges requirement. Id. at § 14(a). This law is set to take effect July 1, 2013.
The plaintiffs in this case operate three of the five licensed abortion facilities in this State. June Ayers, the owner and Administrator of Reproductive Health Services (RHS) in Montgomery, and Staci Fox, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Planned Parenthood Southeast (PPSE), the sole licensed abortion provider in Mobile and Birmingham, explain that their physicians will be unable to obtain admitting privileges at any local hospital due to a slew of prerequisites for obtaining such privileges which have little if anything to do with the caliber of the physicians themselves, and everything to do with the hospitals' own needs.1 For example, Jackson Hospital in Montgomery requires that physicians with staff privileges guarantee a minimum of 48 admissions, inpatient evaluations, consultations, or procedures in the hospital every year; because abortion patients so rarely require hospitalization, RHS's physicians cannot meet this requirement. Ayers Decl. (Doc. No. 4–4) Ex. C ¶ 23. An additional impediment to satisfying the staff-privileges requirement is that many of the plaintiffs' physicians do not live in the communities they serve. This is a problem because HB 57 requires an abortion physician to have admitting privileges at a hospital in the vicinity of the clinic where the physician performs abortions, and the hospitals, in turn, require doctors seeking staff privileges to live a reasonable distance from the hospital from which they seek admitting privileges. See, e.g., Baptist Health Bylaws (Doc. No. 43–13) Ex. 25 at 9 ( ); Ayers Decl. (Doc. No. 4–4) Ex. C ¶ 23 ( ). The defendants argue that the plaintiffs should persuade their doctors to move their residences to comply with this requirement or hire new doctors. But the plaintiffs have submitted substantial evidence that the severe harassment and even death threats targeted at abortion providers makes it nearly impossible for them to find doctors willing to live near their clinics.2
The record therefore currently reflects that, as they cannot comply with the staff-privileges requirement imposed by HB 57, unless it is enjoined, the plaintiffs will be unable to provide abortion services once the law takes effect.
It appears from the record thus far that the plaintiffs have standing to bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves, their staff, and their patients. In order to bring a claim on behalf of a third party, as the plaintiffs do for their claim that HB 57 threatens the substantive-due-process rights of their patients, the plaintiffs must satisfy three requirements: (1) they must in fact be injured; (2) they must have a close relationship with the third party; and (3) there must be some obstacle or hindrance to the third party's ability to bring the claim on its own behalf. Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 112–16, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (plurality opinion).
The plaintiffs face imminent criminal prosecution if they continue to perform abortions after July 1. This is a “real and immediate” threat, neither “imagin[ed]” nor “speculative.” Summit Med. Assocs., P.C. v. James, 984 F.Supp. 1404, 1426 (M.D.Ala.1998) (Thompson, J.) (quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)) aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds and Summit Med. Assocs., P.C. v. Pryor, 180 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir.1999). The threat is particularly credible since the State has confirmed that the criminal provisions will be in effect as of July 1. The plaintiffs have thus, so far, shown an injury sufficient to create an Article III case or controversy. See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188, 93 S.Ct. 739, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1973) ) ; Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati, 822 F.2d 1390, 1396 (6th Cir.1987) (same).
As for the second and third requirements, federal courts routinely recognize an abortion provider's standing to assert the claims of its patients. See, e.g., Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reprod. Health Servs. v. Marshall
...a substantial obstacle to a woman's exercise of her due process right. Id. at 883, 112 S.Ct. 2791. Planned Parenthood Southeast v. Bentley , 951 F.Supp.2d 1280, 1285 (M.D. Ala. 2013) (footnote omitted). "The rule announced in Casey ... requires that courts consider the burdens a law imposes......
-
Little Rock Family Planning Servs. v. Rutledge
...(summary judgment opinion laying the foundation for the application of the undue-burden test); Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Bentley , 951 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1290 (M.D. Ala. 2013) ("Strange I ") (temporarily enjoining the enforcement of the staff privileges requirement).22 Defendants appea......
-
Little Rock Family Planning Servs. v. Rutledge
...(summary judgment opinion laying the foundation for the application of the undue-burden test); Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Bentley , 951 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1290 (M.D. Ala. 2013) ("Strange I ") (temporarily enjoining the enforcement of the staff privileges requirement).12 Defendants appea......
-
Reprod. Health Servs. v. Strange
...standing; thus, both RHS and Ayers may assert the constitutional rights of the clinic's minor patients in their challenge to the Act.In Bentley , another judge of this court determined that these very plaintiffs—Ayers and RHS—had standing to assert the claims of their patients. The court ex......