It’s the 12 Days of Ballotpedia! Your gift powers the trusted, unbiased information voters need heading into 2026. Donate now!

Judge allows Mississippi abortion law to go into effect

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

July 14, 2012

The Judicial Update

JACKSON, Mississippi: U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan has cleared the way for a Mississippi law that requires physicians performing clinic abortions to be an OB-GYN with local hospital admission privileges.[1] Judge Jordan originally halted the law from taking effect as recently as July 11th[2], but on July 13th he cleared the law to take effect. However, his ruling also prevents the state of Mississippi from seeking criminal and civil penalties while a clinic goes through the administrative process of meeting the newly imposed requirements.[1]

According to Judge Jordan, his ruling to suspend civic and/or criminal charges while the clinic makes the administrative changes necessary to adhere to the law is meant to avoid irreparable harm with the law in place.[1] The only abortion clinic in Mississippi, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, originally sought to block the law in part because they claimed the requirement of admitting privileges was next to impossible to meet for the clinic.[2]

According to the Jackson clinic, they have been unable to obtain admission privileges for their doctors as the hospitals they have contacted have either not responded to their request, or told them not to bother trying to request the privileges. The clinic relies on out-of-state doctors to preform the clinic services due to a lack of willing Mississippi doctors. However, local hospitals are reluctant to grant admission privileges to out-of-state doctors, and religious-based hospitals are reluctant to grant privileges to doctors who preform abortions.[2][3]

According to the complaint filed by attorneys on behalf of the clinic, enforcement of the rule would constitute a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions.[2]

‘"If they're denied or if the hospitals are dragging their feet, that's going to be more clear evidence that there's a substantial obstacle’ to an abortion, clinic attorney Robert McDuff said.”[2]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that no state can enact substantial obstacles or place undue burdens on women seeking abortions.[2]

A similar case, Isaacson v. Horne, 12-01501, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.[1]

See also


Footnotes