Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Texas Pre-Abortion Ultra-Sound Law: One Year Later

http://verdict.justia.com/2012/05/30/some-reflections-on-the-texas-pre-abortion-ultrasound-law-a-year-after-its-passage?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=some-reflections-on-the-texas-pre-abortion-ultrasound-law-a-year-after-its-passage


REVISED January 17, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-50814
TEXAS MEDICAL PROVIDERS PERFORMING ABORTION SERVICES,
a class represented by Metropolitan OBGYN, P.A.;
on behalf of itself and its patients seeking abortions,
doing business as Reproductive Services of San Antonio;
ALAN BRAID, on behalf of himself and his patients seeking abortions,
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
DAVID LAKEY, Commissioner of the Texas Department of
State Health Services, in his official capacity;
MARI ROBINSON, Executive Director of the
Texas Medical Board, in her official capacity,
Defendants - Appellants
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
EDITH H. JONES, Chief Judge:
Physicians and abortion providers — collectively representing all similarly
situated Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services (“TMPPAS”)—
sued the Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services andthe Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board (collectively “the State”)
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief against alleged
constitutional violations resulting from the newly-enacted Texas House Bill 15
(“the Act”), an Act “relating to informed consent to an abortion.” H.B. 15, 82nd
Leg. Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2011). The district court granted a preliminary injunction
against four provisions for violating the First Amendment and three others for
unconstitutional vagueness. We conclude, contrary to the district court, that
Appellees failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on any of the
claims on which the injunction was granted, and therefore VACATE the
preliminary injunction. For the sake of judicial efficiency, any further appeals
in this matter will be heard by this panel.

No comments:

Post a Comment