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
© 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'I've Seen Terrible Things': Lawyer Predicts Spike in Hazing Suits
How 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
- 1Second Judge Blocks Trump Federal Funding Freeze
- 2Crypto Hacker’s $65 Million Scam Ends in Indictment
- 3Trump's Inspectors General Purge Could Make Policy Changes Easier, Observers Say
- 4Supporting Our Supreme Court Justices in the Guardianship Part
- 5'Erroneous Rulings'?: Wilmer Asks 4th Circuit to Overturn Mosby's Criminal Convictions
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