State's Deadline Extended to Answer Abortion Ban Challenge
Georgia Solicitor General Andrew Pinson said moving the deadline would help his office coordinate with the many defendants, some of whom have not yet been served. Pinson also noted the busy schedule of the state's outside counsel, Washington appellate lawyer Jeffrey M. Harris of Consovoy McCarthy.
July 31, 2019 at 05:11 PM
4 minute read
The State of Georgia has been granted an extension of the deadline to respond to a lawsuit seeking to block enforcement of the new abortion ban set to take effect in January.
On Tuesday, Georgia Solicitor General Andrew Pinson filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to answer the constitutional challenge and oppose the motion for preliminary injunction.
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones of the Northern District of Georgia granted the request, changing the state's filing deadline to Aug. 19.
That gives the state an extra seven days to respond to the preliminary injunction motion and an extra 19 days to file an answer to the complaint.
SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, Feminist Women's Health Center, Planned Parenthood Southeast and other medical service providers have sued Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, Attorney General Chris Carr, certain prosecutors and health-care regulators. The complaint alleges the abortion ban created by House Bill 481 is unconstitutional and violates U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
Pinson said moving the deadline would help his office coordinate with the many defendants, some of whom have not yet been served. Pinson also noted the busy schedule of the state's outside counsel, Washington appellate lawyer Jeffrey M. Harris of Consovoy McCarthy—former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., as well as to D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges David Sentelle and Laurence Silberman.
“Mr. Harris will be arguing dispositive motions in McDonald v. Longley, No. 1:19-cv-219 (W.D. Tex.), on August 1, 2019, and will be presenting oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Swanigan v. FCA USA LLC, No. 18-2303 (6th Cir.), on August 8, 2019,” Pinson's motion said. “The short extension requested here will ensure that Mr. Harris has sufficient time to research and brief the important issues presented by Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.”
Pinson went on to note the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction is currently scheduled for Sept. 18. Adding, “this extension will not result in prejudice to Plaintiffs or the Court.”
Both sides declined to comment on the deadline extension.
ACLU Georgia Legal Director Sean J. Young is representing the plaintiffs, along with attorneys from ACLU's national office, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood Federation of America in New York and Washington.
The law bans abortion after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected with ultrasound monitoring equipment. Proponents have used the term “heartbeat bill” to describe this and similar laws recently passed in other states. Those opposed to the bans say that name is intentionally misleading and used to incite an emotional reaction.
“In a typically developing embryo, cells that eventually form the basis for development of the heart later in pregnancy produce cardiac activity that is generally detectable at approximately six weeks from a woman's last menstrual period,” SisterSong's brief in support of a motion for a preliminary injunction said.
At that point, many women don't know they're pregnant. Even if they do, they likely would not have had time to confirm pregnancy and schedule a medical appointment. “The great majority of abortions take place at or after that point,” the brief said. The embryonic stage of pregnancy lasts 10 weeks, when the fetal stage begins. Viability comes months later.
Viability—the ability of a baby to live apart from the mother—is the standard in the landmark Supreme Court decision for Roe v. Wade in 1973. That's the ultimate target of the abortion bans passed in Georgia and half a dozen other states this year. Georgia's is the only one of the bans not yet blocked with a temporary injunction to remain in effect while the litigation proceeds.
The case is SisterSong v. Kemp, No. 1:19-cv-02973-SCJ.
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 AllSanctions Order Over Toyota's Failure to Provide English Translations of Documents Vacated by Appeals Court
4 minute readBurr & Forman, Smith Gambrell & Russell Promote More to Partner This Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Big Company Insiders See Technology-Related Disputes Teed Up for 2025
- 2Attorney Fee Reimbursement for Non-Party Subpoena Recipients under CPLR 3122(d)
- 3‘Second’ Time’s a Charm? The Second Circuit Reaffirms the Contours of the Special Interest Beneficiary Standing Rule
- 4Lobbying-Focused Brownstein Hyatt Opens 13th Office in Tampa
- 5Amid Race for Top Talent, Latham Focuses on Lateral Integration
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