Lawsuit challenges 20-week abortion ban
By Melinda Harrell
Published in News on December 7, 2016 10:32 AM
Various women's health groups filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 30 in an attempt to overturn a measure passed by the state legislature in 2015 that severely limits the exceptions to the 20-week ban on abortions.
North Carolina physicians along with Planned Parenthood South Atlantic are listed on the suit -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina -- requesting relief and a permanent injunction.
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Center for Reproductive Rights are also associated with the suit.
The plaintiffs are requesting that the court declare unconstitutional the statutes criminalizing abortions occurring before the fetus can live outside the womb. They are also seeking a permanent injunction restricting any further measures that would enforce a state law limiting the same procedures.
The law change, which passed in the 2015 legislative session and became effective January 2016, dramatically restricts the medical exception that allows for abortions after the 20-week period to a "medical emergency."
In short, the only legal basis for an abortion under the newly rewritten law would be in a case where the mother's life was threatened.
The suit alleges that those restrictions are harmful to the health of women.
The suit also states that some women who are impacted by the ban have pre-existing medical conditions that become more pronounced as the pregnancy continues. And though it may not be deemed a "medical emergency" by law, the exacerbated condition could potentially become one.
"Forcing a woman who needs medical treatment to wait until her condition deteriorates to the point that it poses a medical emergency is contrary to the standard of care and will expose her to significant health risks," according to the suit.
The suit contends that the restrictively labeling the exception to the 20-week ban as a medical emergency also fails to take into account fetal testing made after 20 weeks that shows anomalies.
"As a result of the 20-week ban, some women who find out about fetal conditions or anomalies close to or after the 20-week cutoff have inadequate time to obtain additional information and to weigh their options of carrying to term or seeking a previability abortion before they are foreclosed from obtaining an abortion," the suit said.
The suit maintains that the limited exception to the ban "presents physicians with an untenable choice: face criminal prosecution for providing medical care in accordance with their best medical judgement, or refuse to provide critical care their patients seek."
Rep. Susan Martin, representative of Pitt and Wilson counties and one of the primary sponsors of the bill, declined to go into detail about the litigation.
"It is in litigation so I decline comment except to say that I believe the 20-week limit is appropriate and constitutional," she said.
"There has been a 20-week limit on the book for 43 years, and Planned Parenthood now claims the prior limit was also unconstitutional. When the bill passed during the summer of 2015 the issue was not raised by the press nor by any legislator or by abortion providers."
Rep. Jimmy Dixon represents Wayne and Duplin counties and is a co-sponsor of the bill. He said despite the lawsuit, he believes the legislation is good.
"I think that the legislation is in line with my feelings about the right to life and I consider life begins at conception, and that we are talking about an individual - male or female - who I believe (has) rights under our constitution," Dixon said.
"I think there needs to be extraordinary perameters that need to be met before an abortion is performed after 20 weeks," he added.
In addressing the suit's allegations of the legislature's definition of "medical emergency" and how it could be construed as harmful to women's health, Dixon believes the language "strikes a good balance between the life of the mother and the life of the person who she is carrying."
"It is my belief that, at that point, there are two lives that need to be taken in consideration in that decision," he said.
"I think that what we have here is the propensity of many -- on both sides of this issue -- to overexplore minute details in order to make a case. That is the reason I am a proponent of cleaning up some of our language in a lot of our legislation that makes it understandable."
Staff attorney for the ACLU of North Carolina Irena Como said in a press release issued Nov. 30 that women must be able to make health decisions at different points in their pregnancy "without interference from politicians."
"It is just plain wrong to force a woman in need of medical care to travel long distances out of her home state or to prevent her from receiving that care altogether," the statement said.
Jenny Black, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, also released a statement addressing the issue.
"We are fighting for the patients who rely on us for high quality care and will continue to do so until each North Carolinian has the ability to make health care decisions based on the best advice of their expert medical provider," she said.