Judge Upholds Florida's 24-Hour Wait Period for Abortion
The ruling comes a month after the Florida Legislature sent Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks. DeSantis is expected to sign it.
April 13, 2022 at 10:44 AM
4 minute read
LegislationWomen will have to wait 24 hours before getting an abortion under a ruling by a Florida judge in a nearly seven-year battle over the waiting period.
Circuit Judge Angela Dempsey in Tallahassee tossed out a lawsuit filed on behalf of a Gainesville women's clinic, saying other medical procedures have similar waiting periods and other important decisions like getting married, getting divorced and buying a gun have longer waiting periods.
"Twenty-four hours is the minimum time needed to sleep on such an important decision," Judge Dempsey wrote.
The waiting period goes into effect once Dempsey signs one additional piece of paperwork.
Dempsey also added that exceptions for the life of a mother, documented cases of rape and incest, and victims of domestic violence and human traffic support the constitutionality of the law.
The Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops praised the decision.
"The 24-hour reflection period is a reasonable measure that will empower women to make truly informed, deliberate decisions apart from the abortion industry's pressures," Christie Arnold, the organization's lobbyist, said in a news release.
The ruling comes a month after the Florida Legislature sent Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks. DeSantis is expected to sign it.
"Since the passage of this law, Florida politicians have continued to place hurdles in the path of people seeking abortion care as part of a larger effort to push care out of reach," said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Julia Kaye. "The state legislature took its most extreme step yet in attacking reproductive freedom earlier last month."
The ACLU is evaluating its next steps in the legal battle.
Former governor and current U.S. Sen. Rick Scott signed the bill into law in June 2015. The ACLU of Florida and the Center for Reproductive Rights filed the suit the next day on behalf of the Bread and Roses Women's Health Center in Gainesville.
The lawsuit argued that many women will have a difficult time scheduling appointments on two consecutive days because of work or school schedules, child care availability and the need to travel, especially if they have a low income.
It also said the exceptions in the law such as rape and incest are meaningless because they require documentation and the majority of victims do not report such crimes. The creation of a two-day process also increases the chances that a woman's abuser will discover the pregnancy and force her to not have the abortion, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit has been dragged out for nearly seven years. A trial court initially threw it out without a full trial, finding it unconstitutional. In a 2-1 ruling, the 1st District Court of Appeal sent the lawsuit back to the circuit court, saying the state had built evidence that supports the constitutionality of the law. The court also lifted an injunction that was temporarily blocking the law from taking effect during legal proceedings.
The state Supreme Court quickly put the injunction back in place while the case continued.
An abortion clinic in Jacksonville began implementing the 24-hour waiting period last week in anticipation of the judge's ruling. Amber Gavin, head of advocacy and operations at A Woman's Choice, said the clinic didn't want patients to suddenly have to change travel plans to quickly adhere to the law.
"This is incredibly hard on some of them. They come to us and have already taken the day off from work, arranged child care," she said. "Some of them had not realized this was going to happen, so it's really painful and hard for our staff to tell the patient that the state is mandating this."
Gavin said it will also require more staffing hours, and for physicians to be at the clinic longer than before.
___
Associated Press writer Adriana Gomez Licon in Miami contributed to this report.
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 AllHow Florida Supreme Court Changes Affect Firms: AI Concerns at Forefront
11th Circuit Rejects Private School's Religious Rights Claim When Stopped From Broadcasting Public Prayer
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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