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
© 2025 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 All![Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/nationallawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/398/2022/05/Allison-Jones-Rushing-2021-006-767x633.jpg)
Dissenter Blasts 4th Circuit Majority Decision Upholding Meta's Section 230 Defense
5 minute read![State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2023/11/Fee-Dispute-767x633.jpg)
State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation
5 minute read![Justified Termination Does Not Bar Associate Attorney From Unemployment Benefits, State Appellate Court Rules Justified Termination Does Not Bar Associate Attorney From Unemployment Benefits, State Appellate Court Rules](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/414/2024/03/Gavel-and-Justice-Scales.jpeg-image767x633cropped.jpg)
Justified Termination Does Not Bar Associate Attorney From Unemployment Benefits, State Appellate Court Rules
5 minute read![TikTok Opts Not to Take Section 230 Immunity Fight to U.S. Supreme Court TikTok Opts Not to Take Section 230 Immunity Fight to U.S. Supreme Court](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/292/2022/04/TikTok-App-13-767x633-1.jpg)
TikTok Opts Not to Take Section 230 Immunity Fight to U.S. Supreme Court
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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