Originally found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------------
It continually amazes me how judges think they have the power to unilaterally overturn duly-passed laws and constitutional provisions. The reason they continue to do so is because no one makes them answer for their actions.
Judges serve at the pleasure of legislatures, and can be impeached for various reasons. But the typical response of people is to appeal the ruling [which cedes its legitimacy], or simply abide by it.
However, if a judge can face consequences for racist emails, surely judges can experience the same for flouting the law, ignoring the constitution, or overturning long-established precedent on a whim.
Here's yet another judge that deserves censure. He overturned a perfectly reasonable law that enhanced the quality of services performed and/or the medical professionals that preform them, and his reasoning was strictly political: He was political attributing motives to those who favored the law, and overturned it based on those assumed motives.
Read on:
---------------------------------
A federal judge on Friday struck down a Wisconsin law requiring doctors performing abortions to get hospital-admitting privileges, concluding that the measure was enacted primarily to provide an obstacle for women seeking abortions.
U.S. District Judge William Conley, who earlier had put the law on hold, ruled that the 2013 law is unconstitutional. He issued a permanent injunction blocking its enforcement.
"The only reasonable conclusion is that the legislation was motivated by an improper purpose, namely to restrict the availability of abortion services in Wisconsin," Conley wrote.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services had sued the state, arguing the requirement will force AMS's Milwaukee clinic to close because its doctors can't get admitting privileges.
Lester Pines, a Madison attorney who argued the case for Planned Parenthood, said it was clear from the 93-page decision that Conley did not consider the matter a close call.
"This was an overwhelming victory for the rights of women in this state," Pines said late Friday.
A spokeswoman for Gov. Scott Walker, who signed the bill into law, said the state will appeal Conley's decision because the Republican governor believes the hospital-admitting requirement is constitutional.
"Our office will work with the attorney general to appeal this ruling, and we believe the law will ultimately be upheld," said Walker aide Laurel Patrick.
Patrick noted the judge did not throw out other major provisions in the bill, including one requiring abortion providers to display an ultrasound of the fetus for the woman to view. Planned Parenthood did not sue over that section.
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Brad Schimel did not immediately respond to messages for comment.
In a statement, Planned Parenthood said only four health centers provide abortions in Wisconsin. If the law took effect, the group said, the largest of those centers would be forced to close immediately, leaving the remaining three unable "to absorb the unmet need."
The group argued that would amount to restricting access to abortions in Wisconsin. State attorneys contended the mandate will ensure continuity of care for women hospitalized with abortion complications.
"We all want to protect patient safety — this law doesn't do that, as the court recognized," said Teri Huyck, head of Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. "Politicians passed this law in order to make it extremely difficult for women in Wisconsin to get safe and legal abortions, plain and simple."
In the first words of his strongly worded decision, Conley made it clear that he had little regard for the new law. The decision was issued late Friday after a trial in Conley's Madison court.
"For reasons left largely unexplained at the time of its enactment, the Wisconsin Legislature passed and Gov. Walker signed (the bill)," known as Act 37, Conley wrote.
Conley noted the requirement provided only "marginal benefit" to a woman's health while violating her rights to liberty and privacy as guaranteed in the 14th Amendment.
"In particular," Conley wrote "the State has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating...a link between the admitting privileges requirement and a legitimate health interest."
In his ruling, Conley wrote that the health advantage provided by the measure "is substantially outweighed by the burden this requirement will have on women's health outcomes due to restricted access to abortions in Wisconsin."
"While the court agrees with the State that sometimes it is necessary to reduce access to ensuresafety, this is decidedly not one of those instances," Conley wrote. "In particular, the State has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating through credible evidence a link between the admitting privileges requirement and a legitimate health interest."
Conley said at the hearing on the lawsuit that he was worried the law was too rigid.
He noted that the law required providers to get privileges within three days of its enactment. Walker signed the law on July 5, 2013, and it required providers to have privileges in place three days later.
Conley said in his decision that the "sudden adoption" of the permitting requirements, without giving enough time for compliance, "compels a finding that its purpose was to impose a substantial obstacle on women's right to abortions in Wisconsin."
The judge pointed out that the act was proposed by Wisconsin Right to Life to Senate President Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) but was opposed by numerous medical groups. Lazich did not respond to calls or emails late Friday.
"There was also no documented medical need or purpose for the act when presented to the legislature and the only physician who provided testimony regarding the act testified against it," Conley wrote.
Conley, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama in 2010, also took a shot at recent legislative actions by the Republican-controlled Legislature. "Not unlike some other controversial legislation in Wisconsin of late, the act was passed precipitously," he wrote.
The state conceded, according to the judge, that it has not imposed similar requirements on any outpatient procedure other than abortion.
Conley said a study of 233,805 abortions showed less than 0.65% of patients experienced a complication after an abortion and that only 0.06% required hospitalization as a result.
"The court finds that while there may be some amount of underreporting, the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that abortion is safe, especially in the first trimester when the vast majority of abortions are performed," Conley wrote.
According to his decision, some 90% of abortions nationally are performed in outpatient settings. Planned Parenthood operates three of the four abortion clinics in Wisconsin.
Planned Parenthood performed about 3,300 abortions in Wisconsin in 2013, down from 4,100 the previous year — with 84% of those abortions occurring in the first trimester, the decision said.
If the measure were upheld, Conley said some Wisconsin women would have to go to Chicago to get abortions.
"While a trip from Milwaukee to Chicago may not pose an issue for women of means (even relatively modest means), women seeking abortions nationally, particularly in Wisconsin are poor, very poor," he wrote.
Nationally, an estimated 42% of women seeking abortions are below the federal poverty line. In Wisconsin, Planned Parenthood said that figure is 62%.
Plaintiffs demonstrated, Conley wrote, "a substantial number of women will be prevented from obtaining abortions (at least, safe ones) if Act 37 goes into effect."
Fourteen states require doctors performing abortions to either have hospital admitting privileges or some sort of alternative agreement, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights. Five other states have passed such restrictions but courts have put them temporarily on hold.
No comments:
Post a Comment