Judge tosses abortion-info mandate as ‘undue burden’

A federal judge has tossed a state law that would have required informed consent for women seeking abortions, saying that providing detailed information to the patients created a hardship for those who want abortions.

In a ruling praised by abortion industry leaders, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp issued a permanent injunction against Legislative Bill 594, which she opined placed “an undue burden” on doctors and patients.

Camp wrote in her opinion that while the law addresses the state’s interest in protecting human life, it places “substantial, likely
insurmountable, obstacles in the path of women seeking abortions in Nebraska.”

That, Camp said, isn’t allowed.

“That is not permitted by the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, and this District Court is bound by those precedents,” she wrote.

“The public interest in preserving the separation of powers, the supremacy of the United States Constitution, concepts of federalism, and the liberty and privacy interests of individuals in exercising responsible stewardship and personal dominion of their own bodies, all weigh heavily in favor of the granting of injunctive relief,” Camp wrote.

The final judgment published this week adds that the state of Nebraska is prohibited from trying to overturn the decision in the legislature.

“The defendants are permanently enjoined from taking any action to enforce
the remaining sections of Legislative Bill 594, 101st Leg. Session,” Camp wrote.

American Life League President Judie Brown said although the decision is bad for Nebraska’s pro-life supporters, it won’t impact the rest of the nation yet.

“This decision won’t affect any other state’s pro-life laws unless it goes to the
Supreme Court and the U. S. Supreme Court says something equally as idiotic as they did in the Casey decision. In that case, it would affect every state. That’s how we got abortion in the first place,” Brown said.

Brown and other pro-life activists say the ruling is not likely to affect Nebraska’s other pro-life statutes.

And, Brown said, this is why her organization encourages pro-life activists to work for personhood amendments to their state constitutions.

“When the Supreme Court ruled in the Casey case many years ago against regulatory laws in the state of Pennsylvania, they specifically set up the ‘undue burden’ argument. Every time one of these regulatory consent laws comes before the court, any court, they can go back to the Casey decision and toss out the state law,” Brown explained.

“That’s why pro-lifers are effectively spinning their wheels for nothing. If they get behind human personhood amendments, these problems would go away and babies would be protected and the issue of abortion would be over,” Brown added.

Brown says it’s unlikely Congress ever would pass a law to take away the
court’s authority to rule on abortion.

“You might as well try to put the ocean in a teacup. We have the most spineless set of politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike. They will say anything to get elected, including that they are pro-life. To have them do something as brilliant as limiting the courts; forget it,” Brown stated.

Section 28-327 of the Nebraska “Informed Consent” established conditions.

“No abortion shall be performed except with the voluntary and informed consent of the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed. Except in the case of an emergency situation, consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed only if, ‘The woman is told the following by the physician who is to perform the abortion, by the referring physician, or by a physician assistant or registered nurse licensed under the Uniform Credentialing Act who is an agent of either physician, at least twenty-four hours before the abortion,'” the law stated.

The statute listed four other conditions that comprise “Informed Consent.”

“(a) The particular medical risks associated with the particular abortion procedure to be employed including, when medically accurate, the risks of infection, hemorrhage, perforated uterus, danger to subsequent pregnancies, and infertility;
(b) The probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed; (c) The medical risks associated with carrying her child to term; and (d) That she cannot be forced or required by anyone to have an abortion and is free to withhold or withdraw her consent for an abortion,” Section 28-237 stated.

In a statement released to the media, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning’s spokeswoman Shannon Kingery says the decision will not be appealed.

“It is evident from the judge’s ruling that LB 594 will ultimately be found unconstitutional. Losing this case would require Nebraska taxpayers to foot the bill for Planned Parenthood’s legal fees. We will not squander the state’s resources on a case that has very little probability of winning,” Kingery stated.

The Nebraska decision comes at the same time as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s decision “making abortion clinics offer women the same standard of care required by other outpatient surgical facilities.”

Cuccinelli wrote in an opinion, “The Commonwealth has the authority to promulgate regulations for facilities in which first trimester abortions are performed as well as providers of first trimester abortions, so long as the regulations adhere to constitutional limitations.”

The attorney general’s actions meet with the approval of Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.

Dannenfelser told WTTG-TV in Washington, “It’s been a topic of concern for many Virginians for some time and there’s a similar opinion in South Carolina. And now the timing is right because there is an open door to do so.”

---