Abortions
Outcome: Somewhat Unfavorable
Also under Abortion notification
Issue
The issue in this case was whether the New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act violated the Federal Constitution, because the statute required notification even in emergency situations that could endanger the minor’s health.
AMA interest
The AMA supports physicians’ right to practice ethical medicine, under which they should exercise their best medical judgment solely on behalf of their patients and without concern that such exercise will run afoul of non-medical, legal restrictions. The AMA opposes the imposition of criminal penalties against physicians on account of their good faith medical decisions.
Case summary
The New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act required that, except in special situations, a physician who is to perform an abortion on a minor ensure that the minor’s parents have received at least 48 hours notice of the intent to perform the abortion. The sanctions for violation of the law included civil liability and criminal penalties. The law allowed physicians to avoid the notice requirement if necessary to prevent the minor’s death, but notice had to be provided even if so doing could result in medical complications and suffering short of death. Both the federal district court and the court of appeals had held the statute unconstitutional.
By unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held that the New Hampshire statute was defective, in that it did not include a “health exception” to the obligation to notify parents. However, the lower courts were ordered to reexamine the law to see if they could devise a remedy to save the valid portions of the statute and still make it conform to Supreme Court precedents, rather than voiding it completely.
Litigation Center involvement
The Litigation Center filed an amicus curiae brief to oppose the parental notification law. The brief highlighted the medical and practical difficulties that the New Hampshire law could cause physicians and their patients. It also made clear that the AMA neither supports nor opposes its members’ performing abortions, as that is a matter of individual conscience.
Also under Access to medical facilities
Outcome: Very favorable
Issue
The issue here was whether a Colorado statute prohibiting a non-consensual “knowing approach” of another person within 100 feet of a health care facility’s entrance was unconstitutional as a violation of the right to free speech.
AMA interest
The AMA supports the right of access to medical care and believes that health care providers have a fundamental right to freedom from violence. The AMA opposes acts of intimidation that may impede physicians’ ability to care for their patients.
Case summary
In response to concern about aggressive anti-abortion protests outside facilities that performed abortions or provided abortion referrals, the Colorado legislature enacted a statute to restrict unwanted approaches toward those entering such facilities. Anti-abortion activists challenged the constitutionality of the statute by suing to enjoin its enforcement. The state trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that the statute imposed content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions that were narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. Both the state appellate court and the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed.
The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which also affirmed. The Court held that the statute regulated place, not content, and properly protected listeners from unwanted communications.
AMA involvement
The AMA joined an amicus curiae brief with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to support the Colorado statute.
Also under Access to medical facilities
Outcome: Very favorable
Issue
The issue in this case was whether a Massachusetts statute intended to keep pro-life demonstrators at a reasonable distance from persons seeking to enter abortion clinics violated the demonstrators’ First Amendment rights.
AMA interest
The AMA supports the right of access to medical care and opposes violence and acts of intimidation directed against patients, physicians, other healthcare providers, and medical facilities, including abortion clinics.
Case summary
In response to concerns of violence, harassment, and intimidation outside medical facilities that perform abortions, Massachusetts enacted a statute which created a buffer zone to keep anti-abortion demonstrators at a reasonable distance from patrons seeking to enter abortion clinics.
The anti-abortion demonstrators challenged the constitutionality of the statute by seeking a preliminary injunction against its enforcement. The district court granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined various Massachusetts government officials from enforcing the statute. The defendants appealed to the First Circuit.
The First Circuit upheld the statute, reversing the low court decision.
AMA involvement
The AMA, the Massachusetts Medical Society, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists joined in an amicus brief supporting the Massachusetts statute.
Outcome: Very unfavorable
Also under Physician safety
Issue
This case concerned the power of the federal courts to enjoin persons who, in the course of abortion protests, intimidate and commit acts of violence against pregnant women seeking medical services at abortion clinics, the physicians and other persons who provide such services, and the abortion clinics themselves.
AMA interest
The AMA supports the right of access to medical care and opposes violence and acts of intimidation directed against patients, physicians, other healthcare providers, and medical facilities, including abortion clinics.
Case summary
The National Organization for Women (NOW) and two abortion clinics sued Joseph M. Scheidler, Operation Rescue, and several other militant anti-abortion activists in 1986 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Chicago. While a part of the defendants’ activities involved legitimate expression of opinion, another part involved illegal conduct. Protestors sat or lay down in abortion clinic doorways, entered the clinics and destroyed medical equipment, and chained their bodies to operating tables to prevent their use. In some instances, protestors physically assaulted clinic staff and patients. The defendants also issued letters and statements to other clinics threatening to engage in such illegal conduct at those clinics unless they voluntarily shut down. NOW claimed that the defendants’ anti-abortion protests violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) through criminal acts of intimidation and violence.
In 1994, the Supreme Court held that RICO provided a remedy against the defendants’ actions. NOW v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249. Following the Supreme Court decision, the case was remanded to the district court for a trial. After a seven-week trial, a jury found for the plaintiffs. The trial court awarded a total judgment of slightly in excess of $250,000. In addition, the court entered a permanent, nationwide injunction prohibiting the defendants from using violence or threats of violence against abortion clinics, their employees, volunteers, or patients. The injunctive relief was far more significant than the monetary damages, because the defendants, being impecunious, were largely impervious to monetary damages.
On Feb. 26, 2003, the Supreme Court reversed, holding for the abortion protesters. The Court reasoned that to violate the Hobbs Act (a federal anti-extortion statute), a perpetrator must obtain actual possession of a victim’s property. The abortion protesters, however, merely interfered with the clinics’ use of their property. Thus, they did not violate the Hobbs or the RICO Act. The Court never reached the issue of whether private litigants could secure an injunction under RICO.
Litigation Center involvement
The Litigation Center, on behalf of the AMA and several state and specialty societies, filed an amicus curiae brief in support of NOW and the other plaintiffs. It primarily argued that the defendants had violated the Hobbs Act and that in so doing, they had supplied the necessary predicate for a RICO violation.
