|

Federal court blocks Wisconsin’s new abortion law

judge-gavel1

Yesterday, I told you about THIS.

Today, we have THIS:

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday evening to block enforcement of a new Wisconsin law that bans doctors who lack admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from performing abortions.

U.S. District Judge William Conley granted the order following a hearing in a lawsuit filed Friday by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services. It alleged the requirement would unconstitutionally restrict the availability of abortions in the state, violates the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee and unconstitutionally treats doctors who perform abortions differently from those who perform other procedures.

The restraining order will remain in place pending a fuller hearing July 17. In his ruling, Conley said “there is a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting privileges requirement.” He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states must prove that restrictions on abortion rights must be reasonably aimed at preserving the mother’s health.

“Moreover, the record to date strongly supports a finding that no medical purpose is served by this requirement,” he said.

The bill was introduced in the Legislature on June 4, passed nine days later and signed into law Friday by Gov. Scott Walker. It took effect Monday. The law also requires women to obtain an ultrasound before getting an abortion, but that provision is not being challenged.

“This ruling is a step in the right direction for the women of Wisconsin who can now continue to make their own personal, private health care decisions,” Terry Huyck, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said in a statement. “We are confident that the Court will ultimately recognize if ACT 37 is not blocked, it would unconstitutionally restrict the ability of Wisconsin women, including victims of rape and incest and women who are in need of an abortion to preserve their health, to access safe and legal abortions. “

Attorneys told Conley that if the law wasn’t put on hold, dozens of women with abortions scheduled in the coming week would have had to cancel their appointments. Those appointments are at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Appleton and the Affiliated Medical Services clinic in Milwaukee, where doctors performing abortions do not have admitting privileges to hospitals within 30 miles as the new law requires, attorneys said.

Both of those clinics would close under the law, meaning abortions would not be available in Wisconsin north of Madison. After the 19th week of pregnancy, abortions would not be available anywhere in the state, the lawsuit says.

Share:

26 Comments

  1. Steverino

    This will be interesting to see how Governor Slime fights for his under the table legislation in court.

  2. Neftali

    Under the table legislation? So…uh..you’re implying it didn’t go through the Wisconsin legislature first? That he just magically made it up? I don’t like the law either, but let’s keep it real, shall we?

  3. Brian Opsahl

    Nef, This was signed by Walker on a holiday weekend without one word of it’s signing at all which is very abnormal for bill signing…and that means they want it quite…hiding it from the women of Wisconsin that now without the direction of a Doctor they require a ultra sound ….yes i said require….what ever happen to republicans wanting Government out of your life…now they want inside a womens body without any consent what so ever..?

    The war on women in republican States is wrong

  4. Neftali

    Oh please. The Holiday weekend stuff is conspiracy nonsense. He just wanted it signed right away, regardless of what the date was. Any law dealing with abortion is impossible to keep quiet…everyone knows this.

  5. Steverino

    I look at it this way Nef if the Governor is proud of his legislation and thinks the citizens will stand by him then designate a special date and location for signing for all to observe. No question he decided to take the cowardly way much like his other edicts because he doesn’t want to face the music.

  6. expdoc

    If this is about a war, and we are all choosing sides I wonder whose side is the female fetus on?

  7. Brian Opsahl

    So Doc,
    A women who’s mother is dying from brest cancer and finds out she too has brest cancer but is some 20 weeks pregnant and her life depends on chemotherapy…..?

    A women who gives birth to a severly brain damaged child that bnever leeves the hospital only to die an agonizing death….that could have been protected depending now on what State you live in…wasn’t roe/wade settled back in 1972 Doc…?

    This is just 2 true storys that answer that question Doc.

    Most people believe that life begins at birth as I do and in nature and with God there is abortions that happen all the time Doc…they are called miscarriage’s

    Look at what the republican party is doing with the laws around the Country when it concerns women.

    Fair pay act…nope
    rape protection law….again..nada
    abortion restrictions…all over the red States
    ask Rick Santorum about birth control laws
    Rush Lintball calling them sluts for wanting insurance to help pay for birth control.
    There are so many more things that party is doing against are Lady’s Doc and next time we have a National election they will say the same thing….what happened…!!

  8. expdoc

    Brian,

    A long, somewhat illogical answer that avoids the central question. If the female fetus is a life, no scenario you can propose would justify terminating that life.

    I would guess you are a big fan of euthanasia too? One question, who decides when it is time to die at the end of life?

    I would guess you would say the patient should be guaranteed that right.

    Another question, how does the about to be terminated patient (the fetus) give their input prior to being aborted? How about the father who is equally responsible for the creation and care of said fetus?

  9. Brian Opsahl

    Re-read my post Doc…

    you say if the fetus is life…and I say, and most say life begins at BIRTH….
    The life of a living Women absolutly comes first…right..?
    so if the cells growing inside her are going to kill her…with Chemo treatments that will also kill those same cells living inside her uteris ….correct..and you as a Doctor don’t understand this…?

    Who are you to tell anybody what happens to there body how are you Lord over them…please explain…?

    Then explain how it’s ok to probe a womens body against her wishes and that of her Doctor becuase they live in the un-frendly State of probevill Wisconsin…

    Republicans hate welfare but want to force a Women to have a child they refuse to help feed or cloth…what a bunch of hypocrits you are…!!!!

  10. expdoc

    Brian,

    As always it is mentally painful to exchange comments with you. Chemotherapy can be performed in pregnant patients and is actually safe for the fetus. See the link below.

    Saying that life begins at birth is so arbitrary as to be funny.

    Babies are born at 26 weeks gestation and live normal and healthy lives. 40 weeks gestation is a normal term infant. So a woman can abort a 28 week fetus that hasn’t yet been “born” and that is OK with you?

    Who are you to tell a person that they can’t murder someone who is annoying them? Why shouldn’t a parent be able to kill a child that is disobedient or has expensive hobbies? Should a mother who finds out she has cancer right after the birth of her baby be able to kill it because her life is in danger?

    And you still haven’t addressed the rights of the father.

    As far as who I am? I am the guy asking the questions to which you have no answer.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/chemotherapy-pregnancy-complications-study/story?id=17014354

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/chemotherapy-pregnancy-complications-study/story?id=17014354

  11. expdoc

    Brian,

    As always it is mentally painful to exchange comments with you. Chemotherapy can be performed in pregnant patients and is actually safe for the fetus. See the link below.

    Saying that life begins at birth is so arbitrary as to be funny.

    Babies are born at 26 weeks gestation and live normal and healthy lives. 40 weeks gestation is a normal term infant. So a woman can abort a 28 week fetus that hasn’t yet been “born” and that is OK with you?

    Who are you to tell a person that they can’t murder someone who is annoying them? Why shouldn’t a parent be able to kill a child that is disobedient or has expensive hobbies? Should a mother who finds out she has cancer right after the birth of her baby be able to kill it because her life is in danger?

    And you still haven’t addressed the rights of the father.

    As far as who I am? I am the guy asking the questions to which you have no answer.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/chemotherapy-pregnancy-complications-study/story?id=17014354

    There is growing evidence that pregnant women with cancer aren’t putting their babies at risk by undergoing chemotherapy treatments.

    A new study that followed more than 400 pregnant women in Europe who were diagnosed with breast cancer, found little to no evidence of negative health effects on infants whose mothers underwent chemotherapy — good news for the one in a thousand women who are pregnant and also suffering from cancer.

    Infants whose mothers were treated with chemotherapy weighed less than those that weren’t exposed to chemotherapy, but they were not at higher risk of birth defects, blood disorders or loss of hair.

  12. Brian Opsahl

    I have stated before what I think on this I guess one more time wont hurt..doc
    If a man has a women with such a decision to make and she chooses to abort I think he has every right to petition the Courts to stop and protect his rights in the matter.

    However I would guess that the Courts would indeed rule that it is her body and her decision…NOT mine or YOUR’S Doc…that is between her and her GOD only..Doc not you or Scott Walker or any other Man…

    Futher…I deplore abortions and would fight tooth and nail if it was my seed….doe’s that explain it simple enought for you…?

  13. Craig Knauss

    doc,

    The fact remains that what a pregnant woman, that neither you nor I personally know, does is none of our damn business.

    Why is that so hard to understand?

  14. expdoc

    Actually, that is only true if you view the fetus as Brian O. does. Not a “life” until it is outside of the uterus.

    I wholeheartedly disagree and know that I am absolutely right. Spend anytime in the NICU and you would have no choice to agree as well.

    So the real debate has nothing to do with a woman’s body or some contrived war on women.

    If you are honest it is about when can a woman decide to kill another human being.

    A human being who is entirely innocent and has no input into the decision. I also have always found it to twisted that the man who has contributed 50% of the genetic material and who is equally responsible for raising the child once it is “born” has no input into the decision either.

  15. “…you would have no choice to agree as well.”

    ::::::::::::

    What an ironic turn of phrase. Still I must insist such difficult moral decisions be made by individuals and not Big Government. Just how this Liberal rolls…

  16. Craig Knauss

    You’re wrong, doc! Absolutely wrong!

    Unless you are her attending physician, or called in by her or her attending physician, or the father of the fetus, it’s none of your business. Got it? Doesn’t matter whether the “life” is in or out of the womb. You have no more legal standing than a cab driver, a bartender, the garbage man, etc.

    Your “moral” outrage is no different than having some religious nut block surgery for your hemorrhoids, or whatever, because they find all surgery “biblically” objectionable. What would you say to them? Most likely “It’s my problem so mind your own business.”

    Also, the father’s “rights” are contingent on his sticking around. As you should already know, many of them don’t because they can’t handle the responsibility.

  17. expdoc

    Whether or not a particular father decides to stick around has nothing to do with this discussion. Any given mother can abandon a child at birth as well, whether or not the father is in the picture.

    The father has the same legal standing as the garbage man. He cannot stop an abortion and he cannot incite an abortion.

    It is interesting to me that you attribute my discussion on this topic to outrage. I have none. I am merely pointing out the inconvenient truth of the abortion debate.

    This country allows legal murder of thousands of viable human beings each year.

  18. Steverino

    Sex education and birth control based on science and not religion is the best alternative to preventing abortions.

  19. Craig Knauss

    History lesson, doc:

    When I was much younger and before you were hatched Illinois had the following laws (as I’m sure Pat will remember):

    No abortions allowed. Period. Result – illegal abortions in alleys.

    No sales of contraceptives. Condoms which could be sold had to be marked “Sold for the prevention of disease only.” Result – Unintended pregnancies from improper use of condoms.

    No “no fault” divorce. Divorce had to be “for cause”, such as adultery. Result – couples were forced to lie about each other to get a divorce.

    No teaching of sex education. (I believe it began when I was in high school or a bit earlier.)

    There were a few other “morality” laws which escape me at the moment, but the reason for these was the Cardinal in Chicago wanted them. We put up with it because we were led to believe the majority of Illinois population was Catholic. Later, we found out it wasn’t even close and some of the outlying areas gained enough power to dump some of these laws, along with SCOTUS help.

    Feel free to practice your religion. But we’ve had our fill of theocracy. It didn’t work.

  20. Brian Opsahl

    In your post Doc, you write…”so the real debate has nothing to do with a womens body or some contrived war on women”…are you insane..!! it has everything to do with a womens BODY…her body, her decision,her life ….your opinion…!!!

    Who is going to feed and cloth and school this child your forseing her to bare for YOU…?
    Well I have a clue…it sure as hell wont be republicans that you follow…as we know they fight having to pay for things like F O O D,H O U S I N G,S C H O O L I N G…..

    So Doc, you would rather see these kids forsed birth followed by starving them, jailing them, denieing them healthcare….maybe this is so you rich guys can have more labor you can take advantage of…who knows..?

    Again..Doc, it’s her life, her God SHE answers to…not you or your’s

    Your Paul Ryan wanted to force a Raped women to have the child…and it happens like 20 thousand times per year….are you flippin kidding me….RAPE..!!

  21. Brian Opsahl

    One more thing about Wisconsins Scott Walker…

    A last minute budget deal hatched by republicans and Walker that forses taxpayers to take 40 million dollars from the public school system and give it to PRIVATE schools in the form of vochers for the rich schools.
    Then cut some 29,000 kids off health care and gave another tax break to the wealthy in his State. When I travel to that State (alot) I meet very few who like this guy…He has hurt many middle income familys with his reverse robinhood practice of take from the poor and give to the rich.

  22. expdoc

    Brian,

    You continue to ignore the life of the child. It is hard to condone murder of the innocent, but you continue to do it gleefully.

    As far as Scott Walker and his approval rating? It is higher in this state than Obama’s approval rating in the country. At least Walker has a majority approval rating. Obama can’t say the same.

    So what are you trying to say again?

  23. expdoc

    Craig,

    Ah the good old days. It’s a veritable liberal utopia we live in now.

    So tell me how you think children are doing now in modern society vs how they did back in the good old days?

    I mean, I know that the sex is great now and all, but what about the family?

    Talk to me about illegitimacy rates, teen pregnancy rates, divorce rates, our education system, the health of our kids and teen unemployment rates.

    You think more liberal laws of the kind you describe and less church attendance is working out so well huh?

    A veritable liberal utopia we live in now.

  24. Craig Knauss

    doc,

    Pull your head out. The “illegitimacy rates, teen pregnancy rates, divorce rates, our education system, the health of our kids and teen unemployment rates” are probably no worse now than they were back then. For example, when I was a sophomore in HS, we had 550 sophomores (1966). Only 400 graduated on time in 1969. What do you think happened to the rest of them? And please tell us how more theocracy would have improved all that since most of this was going on WHILE the Church was sticking its nose in everyone’s business.

    The previous Cardinal-driven theocracy was hardly a utopia, except in the minds of fools who weren’t born yet.

    And FYI, I have had friends, neighbors, classmates, co-workers, relatives, girlfriends, in-laws, and an ex-wife (after 25 yrs) that were practicing Catholics. I’ve been to more Catholic weddings (including mine), baptisms, funerals, and masses than you can shake a stick at. You’re not fooling anyone.

  25. expdoc

    I don’t like to shake sticks at people. That is not allowed in a liberal utopia.

  26. Craig Knauss

    Out here in conservative utopia they shake guns at people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>