Abortion Clinic Fights Fine Over Waiting Period
The clinic argues that it made repeated requests to the State Agency for Health Care Administration in April and May for information about when the 24-hour waiting period requirement would take effect and got no information.
September 13, 2022 at 09:55 AM
3 minute read
A Central Florida abortion clinic is challenging a potential $193,000 state fine, the third case to emerge in recent weeks about whether clinics properly complied with a law requiring 24-hour waiting periods before abortions can be performed.
A Leon County circuit judge on April 25 issued a decision upholding the law, which passed in 2015 but had been on hold amid a constitutional fight. The state Agency for Health Care Administration, which regulates abortion clinics, has sought to impose fines for alleged violations of the law in the days and weeks after the judge's ruling.
Three challenges have been filed at the state Division of Administrative Hearings since Aug. 1, with the largest filed last week involving the Center of Orlando for Women. An administrative complaint filed by the Agency for Health Care Administration alleged that 193 abortions were performed at the facility from April 26 to May 7 without 24-hour waiting periods. State law allows the agency to collect $1,000 for each violation of the law.
But the clinic argues that it made repeated requests to the agency in April and May for information about when the 24-hour waiting period requirement would take effect and got no information.
"The agency regulating abortion clinics could not tell the owner of a clinic the effective date of a major change in the law governing the process of providing an abortion," the clinic's response filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings said. "More specifically, respondent had heard of the ruling that allowed the 24-hour waiting period to go into effect but could not locate any information about the effective date of the new requirement which mandated a significant change in how abortions are provided in Florida."
The two other cases pending at the Division of Administrative Hearings involve Miami-Dade County clinics. One of the cases challenges the Agency for Health Care Administration's attempt to impose a $41,000 fine against A GYN Diagnostic Center, while the other challenges the agency's attempt to collect $3,000 from Doctor's Office for Women, Inc., which does business as Today's Women Medical Center.
While the details of the three cases differ, each centers on allegations that the agency found violations of the 24-hour waiting period law when it conducted surveys at the facilities in May.
The law requires women to receive information from doctors about abortions and then wait at least 24 hours before having the procedures.
Meanwhile, the Agency for Health Care Administration also faces an administrative challenge to an attempt to revoke the license of a Pensacola abortion clinic, Integrity Medical Care, LLC, which does business as American Family Planning.
That case, which is scheduled for a November hearing, has focused, in part, on complications suffered by two women who went to the clinic in March and May for second-trimester abortions. The state alleged that physicians and staff did not comply with the proper standard of care — an allegation the clinic disputes. The case does not involve the 24-hour waiting period law.
The administrative disputes have come amid a national debate about abortion rights, largely triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in June to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. They also have come amid a court fight about a new Florida law that prevents abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
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
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