W. Ala. Women's Ctr. v. Miller

Decision Date26 October 2017
Docket NumberCIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15cv497–MHT (WO)
Citation299 F.Supp.3d 1244
Parties WEST ALABAMA WOMEN'S CENTER, et al., on behalf of themselves and their patients, Plaintiffs, v. Dr. Thomas M. MILLER, in his official capacity as State Health Officer, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

Alexa Kolbi–Molinas, Andrew Beck, Jennifer Lee, Pro Hac Vice, American Civil Liberties Union, New York, NY, Randall C. Marshall, ACLU of Alabama Foundation, Inc., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiffs.

Bethany Lynn Bolger, Carol Robin Gerard, Phillip Brian Hale, Alabama Department of Public Health, Office of General Counsel, William G. Parker, Jr., Office of the Governor Alabama State Capitol, Andrew L Brasher, Office of the Attorney General, James William Davis State of Alabama, Office of the Attorney General Montgomery, AL, for Defendants.

OPINION

Myron H. Thompson, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In West Alabama Women's Center v. Miller , 217 F.Supp.3d 1313 (M.D. Ala. 2016) (Thompson, J.), this court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of two Alabama statutes, enacted on May 12, 2016, that regulate abortions and abortion clinics. The court must now address whether the two laws should be permanently enjoined. Based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, this court holds that they should be. While the court parrots many of its earlier findings and conclusions, it substantially and importantly expands on some as well.

I. INTRODUCTION

The first challenged statute, the "school-proximity law," provides that the Alabama Department of Public Health may not issue or renew licenses to abortion clinics located within 2,000 feet of a K–8 public school. See 1975 Ala. Code § 22–21–35. The second statute, the "fetal-demise law," effectively criminalizes the most common method of second-trimester abortion

—the dilation and evacuation, or D & E, procedure—unless the physician induces fetal demise before performing the procedure. See 1975 Ala. Code § 26–23G–1 et seq.

The plaintiffs are West Alabama Women's Center (a reproductive-health clinic in Tuscaloosa, Alabama) and its medical director and Alabama Women's Center (a reproductive-health clinic in Huntsville, Alabama) and its medical director. The plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and their patients. The defendants are the State Health Officer, the State Attorney General, and the district attorneys for Tuscaloosa and Madison Counties, where the clinics are located. All defendants are sued in their official capacities.

The plaintiffs claim that the school-proximity and fetal-demise laws unconstitutionally restrict abortion access in Alabama in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question) and 1343 (civil rights).

Based on the record (including evidence presented at a hearing), the court holds both laws unconstitutional. The evidence compellingly demonstrates that the school-proximity law would force the closure of two of Alabama's five abortion clinics, which together perform 72 % of all abortions in the State. Meanwhile, the fetal-demise law would prohibit the most common method of second-trimester abortions

in Alabama, effectively terminating the right to an abortion in Alabama at 15 weeks. Because these laws clearly impose an impermissible undue burden on a woman's ability to choose an abortion, they cannot stand.

II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Previously, this court described in some detail a "climate of hostility," both non-violent and violent, surrounding the provision of legal abortions in Alabama. Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Strange , 33 F.Supp.3d 1330, 1334 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (Thompson, J.). Doctors trained in and willing to provide abortion care in Alabama are rare, and face retaliation and harassment on a daily basis as a result of their work. For example, protesters have repeated gathered outside one of the plaintiff physician's private medical practice and the clinic carrying signs calling her "a murderer". Robinson White Decl. (doc. no. 54–4) ¶¶ 8–10. A group also launched a public campaign to convince a hospital to revoke her admitting privileges; this effort included protests in front of the hospital, televised press conferences, and leafletting cars and stores near the hospital. Id. at ¶ 9. Providers of abortion services face difficulties recruiting, hiring, and retaining staff willing to provide abortion care in the face of this stigma and constant uncertainty as to the clinics' continued existence. Women seeking abortion services in Alabama suffer distinct threats to their privacy: anti-abortion protesters regularly protest outside of clinics and harass patients as they exit and enter; at times, protesters have brought cameras and posted photos of clinic patients and their license plates online. Second Gray Decl. (doc. no. 54–1) ¶ 28. "As of 2001, there were 12 clinics providing abortions in the State. Today, that number has dwindled to five." Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Strange , 33 F.Supp.3d 1330, 1334 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (Thompson, J.).

In addition, against this historical backdrop and as outlined in the court's preliminary-injunction opinion, W. Ala. Women's Ctr. , 217 F.Supp.3d at 1319, abortion clinics and their physicians have been subject to a number of regulations in Alabama. In just the last six years, Alabama has passed a host of legislation to regulate how and where abortion care can be provided. The court, however, now mentions only some of those laws.

In 2011, the State prohibited abortions at 20 or more weeks after fertilization—that is, 22 weeks after the last menstrual period1 —unless a woman's condition necessitates an abortion to avert her death or "serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function." 1975 Ala. Code § 26–23B–5.

In 2013, the State enacted a law requiring all abortion clinics to meet the same building safety codes applicable to ambulatory surgical centers. 1975 Ala. Code § 26–23E–9. Under that requirement, abortion clinics must meet the standards of the "NFPA 101 Life Safety Code 2000 edition," id. , which include requirements for egress, fire protection, sprinkler systems, alarms, emergency lighting, smoke barriers, and special hazard protection. To comply with that law, abortion clinics in Alabama conducted extensive renovations or had to purchase new spaces and relocate.

That same year, the State required all physicians who perform abortions in the State to hold staff privileges at a hospital within the same statistical metropolitan area as the clinic. See 1975 Ala. Code § 26–23E–4(c). This court held the staff-privileges requirement to be unconstitutional. See Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Strange , 33 F.Supp.3d 1330 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (Thompson, J.); see also Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Strange , 172 F.Supp.3d 1275 (M.D. Ala. 2016) (Thompson, J.) (determining appropriate relief).

In 2014, the State extended from 24 to 48 hours the time physicians must wait between providing informed consent explanations to patients and conducting the abortion procedure. See 1975 Ala. Code § 26–23A–4.

Also in 2014, Alabama enacted a law modifying the procedures for minors seeking to obtain an abortion. At the time, minors who were unable or unwilling to obtain written consent from their parent or guardian could instead seek judicial approval from a juvenile judge or county court. The new law authorized presiding judges to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent "the interests of the unborn child," and required that the county district attorney be notified and joined as a party. 1975 Ala. Code § 26–21–4(i) - (j). These provisions were declared unconstitutional. See Reprod. Health Servs. v. Marshall , 268 F.Supp.3d 1261, No. 2:14-CV-1014-SRW, 2017 WL 3223916 (M.D. Ala. July 28, 2017) (Walker, M.J.).

In 2016, on the same day, Alabama enacted the two statutes now challenged in this litigation: the school-proximity law and the fetal-demise law.

This year, the Alabama legislature passed a proposed constitutional amendment that declares the State's public policy is "to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life," and "to ensure the protection of the rights of the unborn child in all manners and measures lawful and appropriate." 2017 Ala. Laws Act 2017–188 (H.B. 98). Alabamians will vote on the amendment in November 2018.

The vast majority of abortions performed in Alabama occur in the remaining five outpatient clinics.2 The plaintiffs operate two of the clinics: the Alabama Women's Center, located in Huntsville, and the West Alabama Women's Center, in Tuscaloosa. 3

Together, these two clinics provided 72 % of all abortions in Alabama in 2014. Second Johnson Decl. Ex. D (doc. no. 54–2) at 35.

The Alabama Women's Center, which opened in 2001, is the only abortion clinic in Huntsville, in the far northern part of the State. The Huntsville metropolitan area, with a population of 417,593, is Alabama's second largest urban area.4 In addition to abortion services, the Huntsville clinic provides contraceptive counseling and care, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, pap smears

, pregnancy testing, and referrals for prenatal care and adoption. In 2014, approximately 14 % of the abortions in Alabama took place at the Huntsville clinic. Second Johnson Decl. Ex. D (doc. no. 54–2) at 35.

The West Alabama Women's Center began operations in 1993 and is the only abortion clinic in Tuscaloosa and all of west Alabama. The Tuscaloosa metropolitan area is Alabama's fifth largest urban area. The Tuscaloosa clinic provides reproductive health services to women, including abortions, birth control, treatment for sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy counseling, and referrals for prenatal care and adoption. In 2014, approximately 58 % of the abortions in Alabama took place at the Tuscaloosa clinic, far more than at any other...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Hopkins v. Jegley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • 5 Enero 2021
    ...opinion. SeeW. Alabama Women's Ctr. v. Miller , 217 F. Supp. 3d 1313, 1339 n.24 (M.D. Ala. 2016) ; W. Alabama Women's Ctr. v. Miller , 299 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1279-80 (M.D. Ala. 2017), aff'd sub nom.W. Alabama Women's Ctr. v. Williamson , 900 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2018). The district court fou......
  • Little Rock Family Planning Servs. v. Rutledge
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • 6 Agosto 2019
    ...even if slight , to be ‘undue’ in the sense of disproportionate or gratuitous.") (emphasis added); West Alabama Women's Ctr. v. Miller , 299 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1286 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (noting fetal demise law was passed in pursuit of legitimate goals, but those goals were not sufficient to jus......
  • Whole Woman's Health v. Paxton
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 18 Agosto 2021
    ..."as applied to the plaintiffs" whereas the plaintiffs here argue that SB8 is facially unconstitutional. W. Ala. Women's Ctr. v. Miller , 299 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1289 (M.D. Ala. 2017). Also, SB8 differs from the Alabama statute in meaningful ways, as do the cases’ records. As explained in foot......
  • Little Rock Family Planning Servs. v. Rutledge
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • 23 Julio 2019
    ...even if slight , to be ‘undue’ in the sense of disproportionate or gratuitous.") (emphasis added); West Alabama Women's Ctr. v. Miller , 299 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1286 (M.D. Ala. 2017) (noting fetal demise law was passed in pursuit of legitimate goals, but those goals were not sufficient to jus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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