Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Iowa Bd. of Med.

Decision Date19 June 2015
Docket NumberNo. 14–1415.,14–1415.
Citation865 N.W.2d 252
PartiesPLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE HEARTLAND, INC. and Jill Meadows, Appellants, v. IOWA BOARD OF MEDICINE, Appellee.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Alice Clapman of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Washington, D.C., Sharon K. Malheiro of Davis, Brown, Koehn, Shors & Roberts, P.C., Des Moines, and Roger Evans of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, New York, New York, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Thompson, Solicitor General, and Julie J. Bussanmas and Meghan L. Gavin, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Paige Fiedler of Fiedler & Timmer, P.L.L.C., Urbandale, and Holly A. Harrison, Lynn D. Fleisher, Ph.D., Patrick E. Croke, Daniel C. Craig, and Andrew Chinsky of Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for amicus curiae American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Roxanne Barton Conlin of Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for amici curiae Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and National Women's Law Center.

Joe Austen of Austen Law Office, PLLC, West Des Moines, and Rita Bettis of ACLU of Iowa, Des Moines, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa.

Mailee R. Smith of Americans United for Life, Washington, D.C., and Arthur F. Gilloon of Gilloon, Wright & Hamel PC, Dubuque, for amici curiae Physicians for Life, National Association of Pro Life Nurses, Christian Medical Association, National Association of Catholic Nurses, and The National Catholic Bioethics Center.

Timm Reid of Galligan & Reid, P.C., Des Moines, and Michael J. Norton and Natalie L. Decker of Alliance Defending Freedom, Greenwood Village, Colorado, for amici curiae American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Donna Harrison, M.D., Iowa Right to Life, and Susan Thayer.

Matthew F. Heffron and Christine F. Delgado of Brown & Brown, P.C., L.L.O., Omaha, Nebraska, Patrick D. Smith of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., Des Moines, and Thomas Brejcha of Thomas More Society, Chicago, Illinois, for amici curiae Catholic Medical Association, Catholic Medical Association—Des Moines Guild, Catholic Medical Association—St. Thomas Aquinas Guild of the Quad Cities, Iowans for Life, and Women's Choice Center of the Quad Cities.

Opinion

WIGGINS, Justice.

In 2013, the Iowa Board of Medicine passed a rule establishing standards of practice for physicians who prescribe or administer abortion-inducing drugs. These standards require the physician to personally perform a physical examination and to be physically present when the abortion-inducing drug is provided. It is not disputed the rule would have the effect of prohibiting telemedicine abortions in Iowa.

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. and Dr. Jill Meadows, M.D. (collectively Planned Parenthood) challenge the rule as both improperly enacted and violative of the Iowa Constitution. For purposes of this appeal, we will assume the Board properly enacted the rule and did not violate any of the procedural or rulemaking provisions of Iowa Code chapter 17A (2013), other than Planned Parenthood's claim the rule violates section 17A.19(10)(a ), which provides an agency's action is invalid when “substantial rights of the person seeking relief have been prejudiced” and the action is [u]nconstitutional on its face or as applied.” Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(a ). We will therefore focus on the constitutional question.

The Board has conceded the Iowa Constitution provides a right to an abortion that is coextensive with the right available under the United States Constitution. Planned Parenthood argues the Iowa Constitution affords a broader right, and we should therefore apply a strict scrutiny analysis under the Iowa Constitution to the rule. We need not resolve this question because we conclude, for the reasons stated herein, that the Board's rule violates the controlling “undue burden” test announced by the United States Supreme Court as the federal constitutional test.See Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 878–79, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2821, 120 L.Ed.2d 674, 715–16 (1992) (plurality opinion) and Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 146, 158, 127 S.Ct. 1610, 1626–27, 1633, 167 L.Ed.2d 480, 502, 509–10 (2007). Thus, the contested rule violates the Iowa Constitution under the less stringent Iowa constitutional standard advanced by the Board. We therefore reverse the decision of the district court as to the contested portions of the rule.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On our de novo review, we find the following facts.

A. Medication Abortions. In 2000, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the distribution and use of mifepristone

in the United States. Mifepristone, also known as RU–486, is a prescription drug that terminates a pregnancy by detaching the gestational sac from the uterine wall. In the clinical trials, the woman returned two to four days later and took a second medication, misoprostol, which induced contractions to complete the medication abortion.

Consistent with the clinical trial documents submitted in support of the application for approval of the drug, the FDA label indicated the appropriate treatment regimen was to administer 600 mg of mifepristone

orally, followed two days later by 0.4 mg of misoprostol administered orally. Additionally, the label indicated the patient should take the mifepristone within the first seven weeks of pregnancy.

Once the FDA approves a drug, the FDA does not prohibit physicians from using the drug in a different manner than the label provides—otherwise known as “off-label” use. See U.S. Food & Drug Admin., Off-Label” and Investigational Use of Marketed Drugs, Biologics, and Medical Devices–Information Sheet, available at www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm 126486. Off-label use means the safety and effectiveness of the dosing regimen has not been established by the FDA.

Following FDA approval, additional studies led to the development of new protocols for administering these drugs. The new off-label method changed the dosage amounts of the drugs, lowering the amount of mifepristone

from 600 mg to 200 mg and increasing the amount of misoprostol from 0.4 mg to 0.8 mg. The new method also changed the administration of misoprostol from oral ingestion to buccally—placing the pill between the cheeks and gums. The studies also showed this method was safe and effective for use within the first nine weeks of pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) accepts and approves of this off-label protocol as the standard of care to administer these drugs.

Since 2008, the medication abortions performed by Planned Parenthood in Iowa have involved 200 mg of mifepristone

administered orally, followed one to four days later by 0.8 mg of misoprostol taken buccally. The clinic then instructs the patient to return to the clinic within two weeks after taking the misoprostol for a follow-up appointment. Planned Parenthood utilizes the same procedures for medication abortions if the patient is physically present in the doctor's clinic or if the procedure is being performed utilizing telemedicine.

Telemedicine is a method of practicing medicine in which the physician is at one geographical location, the patient is at a different geographical location, and the two communicate through a secure electrical audio-visual connection that complies with the privacy requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). In Iowa, physicians and hospitals deliver a variety of health care and education services to Iowans living in rural communities through telemedicine. The Board has adopted a rule effective June 3, 2015, regarding the use of telemedicine by Iowa physicians. The regulations make the following findings:

1. The board recognizes that technological advances have made it possible for licensees in one location to provide medical care to patients in another location with or without an intervening health care provider.
2. Telemedicine is a useful tool that, if applied appropriately, can provide important benefits to patients, including increased access to health care, expanded utilization of specialty expertise, rapid availability of patient records, and potential cost savings.
3. The board advises that licensees using telemedicine will be held to the same standards of care and professional ethics as licensees using traditional in-person medical care.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 653—13.11.

The regulations also state that [a] licensee who uses telemedicine shall utilize evidence-based telemedicine practice guidelines and standards of practice, to the degree they are available, to ensure patient safety, quality of care, and positive outcomes.” Id. r. 653—13.11(2). The regulations further require the licensee to perform “a physical examination, when medically necessary, sufficient for the diagnosis and treatment of the patient.” Id. r. 653—13.11(8). They identify nine separate situations in which the licensee need not personally interview, examine, or diagnose the patient, including when “the patient has been examined in person by an advanced registered nurse practitioner or physician assistant or other licensed practitioner with whom the licensee has a supervisory or collaborative relationship.” Id. r. 653—13.11(20)(e ).

Planned Parenthood has been utilizing telemedicine to perform medication abortions in Iowa since 2008.1 At all Planned Parenthood locations in Iowa, a trained staff member takes a medical history from the patient, checks the patient's vital signs, and gathers the patient's blood for tests to check for any medical reasons the woman should not undergo a medication abortion.

A trained staff member then performs an ultrasound on the woman to check for an ectopic pregnancy

and obtain the gestational age of the pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when the fertilized egg is implanted somewhere other than the uterus. An ectopic pregnancy is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds ex rel. State
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 29, 2018
    ...standard from federal precedent.IV. Standard of Review. We review constitutional claims de novo. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Iowa Bd. of Med. , 865 N.W.2d 252, 261 (Iowa 2015). PPH brings a facial challenge to the Act. When reviewing challenges to abortion statutes, the pro......
  • Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds ex rel. State
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 17, 2022
    ...this court applied the federal Casey undue burden test under the Iowa Constitution. See Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Iowa Bd. of Med. (PPH I ), 865 N.W.2d 252, 269 (Iowa 2015). We found that a statewide ban on telemedicine medication abortions, adopted by the board of medi......
  • Hodes & Nauser, MDS, P.A. v. Schmidt
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • April 26, 2019
    ...constitution does not "give any further protection to plaintiffs than does the federal constitution"); cf. Planned Parenthood v. Bd. of Medicine , 865 N.W.2d 252, 262 (Iowa 2015) (listing Nixon and Hope as holding independent state right existed). Only one—an intermediate Michigan appellate......
  • June Med. Servs. LLC v. Kliebert
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana
    • January 26, 2016
    ...Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Strange , 9 F.Supp.3d 1272, 1285 (M.D.Ala.2014) ); see also, e.g. , Planned Parenthood of Heartland, Inc. v. Iowa Bd. of Med. , 865 N.W.2d 252, 268–69 (Iowa 2015) (holding undue burden test must be “context-specific”); Planned Parenthood of Ariz., Inc. v. Humble , 75......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The Geography of Abortion Rights
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 109-5, June 2021
    • June 1, 2021
    ...[https://perma.cc/N4YK-CK9T] (last updated Feb. 1, 2021); see also, e.g., Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Iowa Bd. of Med., 865 N.W.2d 252, 269 (Iowa 2015). 1104 THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 109:1081 caused several states to relax restrictions on telemedicine, although that......
  • WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU'RE NO LONGER EXPECTING: HOW STATES USE CONCEALMENT AND ABUSE OF A CORPSE STATUTES AGAINST WOMEN.
    • United States
    • September 22, 2020
    ...[https://perma.cc/H4F4-C4ZS]. (194) Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Iowa Bd. of Med., 865 N.W.2d 252, 253-54 (Iowa 2015). (195) Telemedicine to Improve Access to Abortion Care, Advancing New Standards in Reprod. Health, https://www.ansirh.org/research/telemedicine-improve-acces......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT