Hope Medical Group for Women, an abortion services clinic in Shreveport, has filed a lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s abortion ban. (Julie O’Donoghue/Louisiana Illuminator)
State District Judge Don Johnson heard arguments Monday in the lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s abortion ban. He directed the parties involved to submit “proposed judgments” for him to consider. A temporary restraining order preventing the ban from being enforced will remain in effect pending Johnson’s decision.
Johnson granted attorneys for the defendants, Attorney General Jeff Landry and Louisiana Department of Health Secretary Courtney Phillips, an extension until 10 a.m. Tuesday to submit their proposals.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Hope Medical Group for Women, a Shreveport abortion clinic, its administrator Kathaleen Pittman and Medical Students for Choice argued that the state’s three abortion “trigger laws” are unconstitutionally vague. Joanna Wright, one of the attorneys, argued that the conflicting language in the statutes makes it impossible for physicians to know what services violate the law and what the potential penalties are.
Wright further argued that not only are the statutes conflicting, statements Landry has made on social media further muddy the waters as to which laws would be enforced.
John Balhoff, primary attorney for the defendants, argued that all three of the trigger laws are enforceable and not unconstitutionally vague. He pointed out that criminal statutes must provide a minimum and a maximum penalty, which the statutes do, even though the laws provide different limits.
Balhoff also argued that the laws are clear as to what is not permissible. Under the law, abortions to remove ectopic pregnancies or a fetus that has a condition incompatible with life are not defined as abortions, he said, and therefore are legally permissible. He added that state law sufficiently states doctors must act in good faith when making healthcare decisions.
“Doctors all already operate using reasonable medical judgment,” Balhoff said.
More than a dozen physicians filed sworn affidavits in the case attesting to their confusion.
“Fear of punishment aligned with lack of clarity on how this law will be enforced can lead to devastating consequences for Louisiana women as well as moral distress for the clinicians who care for them and have taken the Hippocratic oath to do no harm,” Dr. Rebekah Gee, former Louisiana Department of Health secretary, wrote in her affidavit.
Gee also wrote that the law does not make it clear how ill a pregnant person must be before a life-saving abortion is permissible.
“To satisfy these laws – does it have to be her heart that fails, what about her lungs, her kidneys, and so on, what organs would this law decide are necessary to protect her life?” her affidavit said.
Balhoff took issue with Gee’s affidavit, arguing that the definition of life-sustaining organs is obvious, and includes the brain, heart, lungs, kidneys and other organs.
“You can even operate with one lung,” Balhoff said.
Wright, the plaintiffs’ attorney, pointed out that Balhoff’s comment that somebody can live with one lung added further ambiguity to what is legally permissible.
After hearing the arguments, Johnson said that he would make a decision after reviewing the proposed rulings.
In a press conference outside the courthouse, Landry said the state’s abortion ban is clear and invited those who don’t approve of the laws to leave the state.
— Piper Hutchinson (@PiperHutchBR) July 18, 2022
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics.