Federal District Judge?Lee Yeakel?has invalidated portions of the controversial abortion regulations?House Bill 2 today by blocking the provision?that requires doctors to obtain hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of each clinic where they perform abortions. This law and its provision is scheduled to go into effect tomorrow, October 29th.
According to The Austin Chronicle, the judge ruled that the provision is?without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.
His ruling is similar in logic to a ruling handed down by Judge Daniel P. Jordan III when he ruled for an injunction in Mississippi, saying that in that state admitting privileges would?result in a patchwork system where constitutional rights are available in some states but not others.?
Yeakel did leave in place a restriction that doctors providing a medical abortion using RU486 (the abortion pill) follow an older protocol, even though the protocol, while being FDA recommended, is no longer the standard used?, recommended by doctors or thought to be safest for women. Despite the fact that using the old protocol will likely increase cost to patient and number of visits to the clinic, the judge ruled the provision does not?place such an obstacle, except when a physician finds such an abortion necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
Just like in Mississippi , no hospital has been willing to grant abortion providers admitting privileges. Last week during the trial, ?Andrea Ferrigno, vice president of?Whole Woman’s Health testified that she has?been in contact with 32 hospitals to obtain admitting privileges for their doctors, but only 15 accepted applications and none have replied. This is why T.R.A.P. (targeted restrictions of abortion providers) laws are written the way they are, lawmakers knew that hospitals would not accept doctors who would not be providing them regular patients and religious hospitals wouldn’t accept abortion providers.
This ruling is final unlike the case in Mississippi, setting the groundwork for the 5th Circuit to review the merits of the law, not just an injunction against it. So time will tell what the broader impact will be.
Edited by Kyla Ballard
