Use our account feature to register for a free CLI account. Your new account will allow you to bookmark and organize articles and research for easy reference later - making it simple to keep track of the research that's important to you!
Register / Sign in
close-panel

Charlotte Lozier Institute

Phone: 202-223-8073
Fax: 571-312-0544

2776 S. Arlington Mill Dr.
#803
Arlington, VA 22206

Get Notifications

Sign up to receive email updates from Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Become A Defender of Life

Your donation helps us continue to provide world-class research in defense of life.

DONATE

Charlotte Lozier Institute

Phone: 202-223-8073
Fax: 571-312-0544

2776 S. Arlington Mill Dr.
#803
Arlington, VA 22206

Life & the LawMaternal & Public Health

Kentucky Fights on for Women’s Health in Abortion Facilities

In June, while the U.S. Supreme Court was sentencing women to the modern-day abortion back alley, Kentucky’s Court of Appeals unanimously, though temporarily, stopped EMW Women’s Clinic from performing abortions.

 

The timing of such opposing rulings could not have been more ironic. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, informed women in Texas – and nationwide – that their health and safety doesn’t matter in abortion facilities. He based this opinion on the test concocted back in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that even a commonsense health and safety regulation may be deemed “[u]nnecessary” by the judiciary and thus an “‘undue burden’ on a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion.”

 

Breyer’s opinion illustrates the distortion that plagues the rule of law in America when it comes to abortion. It’s about shielding abortion clinics from scrutiny, not achieving justice for women. The Washington Post inadvertently got it right in their Hellerstedt headline, when they wrote that the Supreme Court had called the Texas provisions an “‘undue burden’ on abortion providers.” They focus on the businesses, rather than the women they claim to serve. Indeed, Hellerstedt was a win for the abortion business, but a loss for Texas women.

 

Texas, Kentucky, and other states were and are working to improve women’s health and safety, even – to the extent possible – inside abortion facilities. These states are holding abortion facilities to the same standards as healthcare clinics. And unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, the Kentucky Court of Appeals, a panel composed of three female judges, has applauded and upheld Kentucky law and efforts.

[url=file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=312777][img]http://www.pascalgenest.com/istock/seriesImages/banners_featuredImages.gif[/img][/url] [url=file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=312798][img]http://www.pascalgenest.com/istock/seriesImages/banners_women.jpg[/img][/url] abdomen of a pregnant woman

In March, Kentucky filed a lawsuit against EMW Women’s Clinic in Lexington, which had performed more than 400 abortions in 2015. Based on a February 17 inspection, the Commonwealth provided evidence that the facility was performing unlicensed abortions, was unsanitary, and had expired medication in its procedure room.

 

Under Kentucky law, all abortion facilities and healthcare clinics must meet common-sense health and safety standards. Abortion facilities must also have transport and transfer agreements with a local ambulance service and a local hospital. But as of February 17, EMW had no agreement with an ambulance service.

 

After a March loss in the Fayette Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals reversed that opinion and unanimously granted Governor Matt Bevin’s request to close the facility until either it obtains a license or the lawsuit is resolved. The appellate court agreed that “circuit court’s findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous.”

 

In a statement, Bevin affirmed the decision as an “important victory for the rule of law in Kentucky,” and added, “We are pleased by the court’s recognition that an unlicensed abortion clinic is prohibited from performing abortions. This has been our administration’s stance from the beginning. This is the right and necessary ruling to ensure that the health and safety of women are protected.”

 

Catherine Glenn Foster, J.D., M.A., is an attorney in private practice and an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Latest Posts

March 15, 2024 Abortion Reporting: North Carolina (2022) March 15, 2024 Abortion Reporting: New York (2021) March 15, 2024 Abortion Reporting: New York City (2021)

You Might Also Be Interested In

Filed Brief: Zurawski v. Texas and Reasonable Medical Judgment

Filed Brief: Zurawski v. Texas and Reasonable Medical Judgment

charlotte-lozier-institute Charlotte Lozier Institute
March 11, 2024
ClosePlease login

Fact of Life: American Cars (and Their Drivers) Exhibit Decidedly More Pro-life than Pro-choice Views

March 1, 2024
ClosePlease login
Lozier Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Ecuador Law Limiting Abortion

Lozier Institute Amicus Brief in Support of Ecuador Law Limiting Abortion

charlotte-lozier-institute Charlotte Lozier Institute
February 21, 2024
ClosePlease login

Become A Defender of Life

Your donation helps us continue to provide
world-class research in defense of life.

BECOME A PARTNER
cta-image