BREAKING: Utah court decision whether to block abortion clinic ban will wait

Days before a ban on abortion clinics is slated to begin putting a halt to most abortions in Utah, a district court judge said he’ll make a decision as to whether to enjoin the law next week.

“It would not be fair at this point to shoot from the hip,” Third District Court Judge Andrew Stone said, adding he’s going to take time to reread both parties’ briefs.

Planned Parenthood Association of Utah asked Stone to put the law on hold at the beginning of April — one month before its May 3 effective date. Gov. Spencer Cox signed HB467, “Abortion Changes,” into law on March 15.

The request came as part of its larger lawsuit challenging Utah’s abortion trigger law, which went into effect last summer following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the landmark abortion rights case Roe v. Wade and bans abortion with limited exceptions. Stone put a temporary restraining order on the trigger law a few days later, and eventually issued a temporary injunction that remains in place.

Under Stone’s earlier order, abortions in Utah remain legal up to 18 weeks and are allowed with some exceptions after the gestational limit.

The law, introduced by Rep. Karianne Lisonbee, R-Clearfield, builds on both the blocked trigger ban and the 18-week ban to make numerous changes to abortion policy. The most impactful shifts include forcing abortions into facilities that meet the bill’s definition of a hospital, stopping license renewal for clinics in May and outright prohibiting clinics beginning in 2024.

It also adds professional penalties for health care providers who provide illegal abortions, further limits when people can seek an abortion after being sexually assaulted and discourages it if the fetus has a fatal abnormality.

Lisonbee’s bill was one of two passed this session that restricts abortions for rape and incest victims to 18 weeks, and requires doctors to tell parents whose fetus is “incompatible with life” that hospice and palliative care options are available as alternatives to abortion.

“In this motion, Planned Parenthood is asking for a second preliminary injunction against a second abortion ban,” Planned Parenthood attorney Hannah Swanson said in court Friday.

Attorneys for Planned Parenthood have described the law in court filings as an attempt by the Legislature “to accomplish by other means what the Utah courts have prevented it from doing directly — ban abortion in Utah.”

The organization, which operates three of four abortion clinics in Utah and provides approximately 95% of abortions in the state, said in a news conference earlier this month that it will stop offering abortion services May 3 if the bill is allowed to go into effect.

During debate at the Legislature this year, sponsors said some clinics would be able to apply for a license that would allow them to offer abortions if they meet the bill’s “hospital” definition. That definition says a clinic must be “certified by the (Department of Health and Human Services) as providing equipment and personnel sufficient in quantity and quality to provide the same degree of safety as ... a general hospital licensed by the department.”

In its request for a preliminary injunction, attorneys included a declaration from Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s Annabel Sheinberg, who serves as vice president of external affairs. She said she met with DHHS soon after the bill was signed in March to ask how her organization could obtain such a license.

The licensing division director reportedly told her “that only licensed general hospitals and satellite facilities operating under a general hospital’s license would be eligible for HB467′s expanded ‘hospital’ definition.”

Responding to Planned Parenthood’s request that HB467 be put on hold, the Utah Attorney General’s office opened its argument referring to rule changes brought about by another lawmaker’s bill targeting the block on the trigger ban.

“For the court to resolve (Planned Parenthood’s) request to enjoin HB467, it is imperative that the court first answer one straightforward legal question, which is: Does the Utah Constitution protect abortion as a fundamental right?” asked Lance Sorenson, on behalf of the state.

Rep. Brady Brammer’s, R-Pleasant Grove, HJR2 — or Joint Resolution Amending Rules of Civil Procedure on Injunctions — retroactively changed the rules for when a judge can issue an injunction, eliminating the language Stone used for pausing the trigger law. Now, a judge can only enjoin a law if “there is a substantial likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits.”

That joint resolution has also raised questions about the fate of the larger lawsuit, FOX13 reported. The state appealed the injunction on the trigger ban to the Utah Supreme Court. The court has since delayed hearing the appeal while it examines the impact of Brammer’s resolution — with Associate Chief Justice John Pearce writing that it changes rules “in two ways potentially material to whether interlocutory review continues to be warranted.”

This story is breaking and will be updated throughout the day.

source https://oto.oto-login.com/