Divided Eighth Circuit Panel Upholds Preliminary Injunction Barring Implementation of Missouri's Gestational Age and Down Syndrome Abortion Bans
The panel upheld a district court decision to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of two provisions that once again tested the distinction between outright bans on certain pre-viability abortions—which are categorically prohibited under the Supreme Court's decision in 'Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey'—and regulations that impose conditions on, but do not prohibit, pre-viability abortions.
July 14, 2021 at 01:21 PM
10 minute read
In Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of St. Louis Region v. Parson, Nos. 19-2882, 19-3134, — F.3d —-, 2021 WL 2345256 (8th Cir. June 9, 2021), a divided Eighth Circuit panel upheld a district court decision to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of two provisions of a Missouri abortion law that once again tested the distinction between outright bans on certain pre-viability abortions—which are categorically prohibited under the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)—and regulations that impose conditions on, but do not prohibit, pre-viability abortions.
The "Gestational Age Provision" of Missouri's House Bill 126 is actually a series of statutes that subject to criminal prosecution and professional discipline any provider who performs an abortion at or after 8, 14, 18, and 20 weeks of fetal gestational age "except in cases of medical emergency." The "Down Syndrome Provision" of HB 126 imposes civil penalties on any provider who performs an abortion when he or she "knows that the woman is seeking the abortion solely because of a prenatal diagnosis, test, or screening indicating Down [s]yndrome or the potential of Down [s]yndrome in an unborn child."
In July 2019 Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of St. Louis Region (RHS) sued Missouri on behalf itself and prospective patients and sought an injunction to stop both provisions from going into effect, arguing that they are bans that are unconstitutional under Casey. The District Court for the Western District of Missouri initially preliminarily enjoined only the Gestational Age Provision, finding that RHS had not presented evidence showing that, in the absence of an injunction, an abortion due to a diagnosis of Down syndrome would actually be prevented before a final judgment could issue. After RHS presented additional evidence in the form of a declaration from Dr. Colleen McNicholas, RHS's Chief Medical Officer, the district court also preliminarily enjoined the Down Syndrome Provision. Missouri's separate appeals of the two injunctions were combined in the Eighth Circuit.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readInsurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
State Appellate Court Relies on 'Cancellation Rule' for Expert's Conflicting Testimony
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Preemptive Litigation: A Potential Approach for a Precise Situation
- 2Paxton's 2024 Agenda: Immigration, Climate, Transgender Issues, Social Media, Abortion, Elections
- 3Let’s Hear It One Last Time!: One More Bow for 2024’s Litigators of the Week
- 4Bottoming Out or Merging Up? Law Firms That Shuttered in 2024
- 592 Nursing Homes, Left Out of NYS Funding for Ongoing Capital Expenses, File Federal Lawsuit
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250