By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Ruling on statutory grounds, Skagit County, Washington Superior Court Judge Raquel Montoya-Lewis held that a public hospital offering maternity services to women must also offer abortion services. Referring patients to Planned Parenthood, the court ruled, violates state law regarding abortion services provided to patients. The suit was brought on behalf of a plaintiff patient by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The fundamental conflict in the case litigated was ostensibly due to the defendant hospital district’s position that while agreeing to offer such services, it experienced difficulty in complying due to lack of health professionals willing to perform abortions. State law does allow heath care professionals to decline to perform voluntary abortions for personal reasons.
For other public hospital districts, the ACLU served notice requesting similar compliance with state law.
In Coffee v. Public Health District No. 1, the ACLU filed on behalf of plaintiff Kevan Coffee who alleges she was unable to carry her pregnancy to term “without facing severe severe, life-threatening birth defects.” The defendants are primarily Public Hospital District No. 1, Skagit County, d/b/a Skagit Regional Health, along with several of the hospital district’s commissioners and its CEO in their official capacities. A copy of the complaint may be read HERE.
In the lead-up to the lawsuit, Plaintiff served two demand letters to Defendants in July, 2014 and February, 2015 requesting that Defendants provide medication abortions and surgical abortions in compliance with Washington state law.
In their response, two days following the second demand letter, Defendants adopted by resolution a policy concerning the Washington Reproductive Privacy Act, stating that they do not prohibit or have a written policy against providing termination services to women. Plaintiff argues, however, that Defendants do not comply with this act despite the resolution in that they do not provide for “substantively equivalent services for terminations as it does maternity care, and Defendants continue to have a practice of never performing medication abortions and of rarely performing surgical abortions for patients seeking or needing such medical care.”
In her cause of action, Plaintiff alleges the following statutory violations:
RCW 9.02.100(2) provides that “[e]very woman has the fundamental right to choose or refuse to have an abortion….”
RCW 9.02.100(4) provides, “[t]he state shall not discriminate against the exercise of these rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.”
RCW 9.02.160 provides that “[I]f the state provides, directly or by contract, maternity care benefits, services, or information to women through any program administered or funded in whole or in part by the state, the state shall also provide women otherwise eligible for any such program with substantially equivalent benefits, services, or information to permit them to voluntarily terminate their pregnancies.”
The suit asked for Defendant to be enjoined from violating these statutes, provide such abortion services, and pay legal costs and expenses.
In a statement provided by the WA ACLU, the advocacy group stated the following information:
Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington, said the decision affirms reproductive rights in Washington. “The right of women to choose or to refuse to have an abortion is fundamental and has long been recognized under Washington law. We brought the lawsuit to ensure that women can access the full range of reproductive health care at public health facilities in their own communities. We hope this ruling makes the promise of the state’s Reproductive Privacy Act a reality for all women across Washington state,” Taylor said.
ACLU Senior Staff Attorney Brigitte Amiri said, “Today’s decision is a huge victory for women seeking access to abortion, and we hope it will serve as an example for hospitals throughout the country. At a time when much of our nation is facing numerous restrictions on access to abortion, it’s a breath of fresh air to have a court ensure women can get the care they need.”
[…]
The suit is part of a statewide effort by the ACLU to ensure that all public hospitals are complying with the RPA. As a result of ACLU advocacy, Jefferson Healthcare, the public hospital district in Jefferson County, put in place a new reproductive health policy that will lead to a Port Townsend hospital providing abortions as part of its full range of women’s health services.
Handling the case for the ACLU are cooperating attorneys Aalok Sharma, Kimberly A. Haviv, Rebecca Tarneja, Lauren C. Fujiu-Berger, Amara Levy-Moore, Alice Tsier, and Marvin E. Bonilla of White & Case LLP and Karen Koehler of Strittmatter Kessler Whelan; and ACLU staff attorneys La Rond Baker, Margaret Chen, Leah Rutman, and Brigitte Amiri.
I suspect there could be a later question locally in the state as to simply allowing physicians and other Planned Parenthood professionals to have hospital rights at public hospitals, or perhaps some form of business venture with planned parenthood that links their facility with that of the hospital or a contracting of providers. On a political perspective it is doubtful the current legislature and governor will muster enough votes to change Chapter 9.02 RCW to repeal such requirements recognized by the Court. The law in question stems from a citizens initiative passing in 1991.
On a national level future issues are likely to generate from this decision, especially if the ACLU brings similar actions on behalf of other plaintiff patients in states having analog statutes.
There have been concerted efforts in a few state legislatures to effectively deny hospital privileges for physicians providing this service by several means, both administrative and statutory. And in the case of such conflicts between mandates of hospitals and availability of qualifying physicians to perform abortion services in-house, hospitals could face liability.
By Darren Smith
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Sources:
Skagit County Clerk’s Office via ACLU (Complaint)
KOMO News
Chapter 9.02 RCW
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington State
This violates the freedom of the doctors themselves. Not all OB/GYNs believe in abortion, and of those who do, not all would want to perform it themselves. Even if you theoretically believe in the right to abortion, actually using forceps to pull out 2nd trimester babies piece by piece is a nasty business. To require that all OB/GYNs do so seems to me like it violates their own right to choose how they want to do business.
I agree that forcing all hospitals to perform abortions provides the same precedent to force all OB/GYNs to do it. Hospitals are owned by people, who have had their right to choose if they want to participate in abortion taken away. Where is their right to choose? If a business owner can be forced to participate, a doctor can, too. And then that raises the whole Hippocratic Oath.
There are plenty of businesses who operate because they want to provide abortions. It’s a booming business. There is no need to force all health care businesses to provide it, and I believe it should be illegal to force such a choice upon people. It’s a similar argument as those who are pro choice who feel strongly that their choice shouldn’t be taken away.
People tend to feel very strongly about the abortion issue. Those who oppose it have a similar view as if they walked into a nursery and killed a sleeping infant. And there are others who only feel that strongly after a certain gestation. It is a very personal issue. As such, I feel that no one should be forced to participate in it.
This would also spell the end to the long history of Catholic hospitals who have provided health care for centuries. I agree with the previous poster that they will simply have to suspend all maternity care until and unless such a decree is lifted.
Philly T.-While there are sone Muslims owned/ operated clinics in America, I don’t think there are any Muslim owned/ operated hospitals.
In any case, I don’t think that the ACLU would select a politically-incorrect target to press a case like this, so I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting to see similar ACLU action targeting non-Christians.
I am not sure this will hold up on appeal. This needs a pragmatic solution and this woman and the ACLU have not taken it.
I think a similar suit by the ACLU was shot down in California, but the ACLU’s had better luck so far rolling the dice in one of California’s more liberal colonies to the north.
Porkchop… IF the hospital is legally forced to provide abortions, it’s seems like it’s a relatively small step to require an OB/GYN to do the same.
It seems that it would follow, given the ALCU’s logic (and mirrored here in some comments), that those MDs, given that they provide “other maternity services” and likely accept public funding (Medicare, Medicaid, etc), they would face a requirement to perform abortions.
Since the 2nd Amendment is an enumerated federal right, I want convenience stores to be forced to sell ammo and pistols.
KCFleming….I wrote and posted my comment before I read yours.
Wasn’t plagiairizing your ideas…..like Paul C. Schulte previously, you “aced me out” by minutes in hitting “Post Comment”.😊
I understand that it is the case that the number of physicians who are willing to provide abortion services is limited, whether by personal choice, religious or ethical conviction, or fear of negative effects on other areas of their practices through public approbation.
How then can any given hospital assure that there is a physician willing to perform the procedure at any given time? What happens if, after a reasonable search for a physician to do so, no one comes forward? Why is that not a valid defense here? Did the judge make a factual finding that the physician search alluded to in the article was inadequate? If the hospital really can’t find a physician to perform the service, then isn’t there a legitimate impossibility defense?
I realize that Skagit County is not really remote, but with a population of ~120,000, I wouldn’t think that the demand for abortions would be sufficient to require a full-time abortion provider. Presumably, then it would be a relatively smaller part of a larger practice by someone already in the community, or the hospital would have to recruit someone from outside to come in periodically to perform abortions as needed. Since the hospital has stated that it was having difficulty finding someone to provide the services, can we assume that all of the local physicians have declined, and that the hospital has not been able to find someone who is willing to come in from outside the local area on a periodic basis? Is there a question as to the good faith of the hospital’s search?
Washington State is one of several states that has legalized assisted-suicide.
There is a provision in WA. law that allows for voluntary participation……or non-participation….by MDs, hospitals, clinics, etc.
Don’t know if ACLU’s favorable ruling will hold up on appeal.
If it does, ACLU can turn its focus to, say, REQUIRING health care professionals , clinics, etc. to offer assisted suicide “services”.
By the logic of some, there’s no room for an opt-out (voluntary participation) if their hospitals/ clinics/practices are open to the public.
And when suicide is “right” and changing genders is a “right,” no one can opt out?
Lonnie did you get your medical training at Fort Bragg and Fort Sam Houston? In years past that was the unofficial motto of the Special Forces Medics a program that went on to evolve in Physicians Assistants. I think the motto is gone along with goat lab.
So, what’s the issue here, that abortion is a statutory right? Why pin this on the judge for following the law rather than on the state legislature? It was sort of a no-brainer decision by the court, unless you are thinking she should have found state law is trumped by the Washington’s state constitution or the federal constitution, which would have been error.
Write the words ,phillyT, or reveal you are merely an anti-Christian bigot.
Maybe we should have to wear yellow crosses on our clothes, phillyT, lest someone accidentally hire one?
Sign on the shop in DC:
Turley Abortion Clinic
You Rape Em We Scrape Em
No Fetus Can Beat Us.
And, not “Ned”
Aside from cake decorators, physicians, lawyers, nurses, pharmacists, clothing retailers, teachers, Ned government jobs, are there any occupations phillyT thinks Christians should stay away from because they won’t do what they consider to be sinful?
I will only believe your integrity on this when you do the same to Muslims on abortion as well as gay marriage.
You can start by declaring it here on this blog.
“This is a good decision. Catholics don’t have to be in the marriage business if they don’t want to. But if they are going to be, they should offer ALL legal services.“
This is a good decision. Catholics don’t have to be in the hospital business if they don’t want to. But if they are going to be, they should offer ALL legal services. Same with pharmacists. If you don’t want to serve the public, go do something else.
Good decision!
So the hospital drops all maternity services. Question If the PP offers abortion services is it required to offer all maternity services? There’s a book by Hesperian Foundation of San Jose, CA dealing with midwifing along with three other rather good ones. Where There is No Doctor. Where There is No Dentist, and one on public health. Published in English, Spanish and French. These were made for third world countries. Maybe it’s time to distribute them in the USA. Available through Amazon. I’ve distributed these myself through the islands of the South Pacific and more remote villages of Central and South America.
Something to fall back on in the face of a collapsing health care system called ObombedA Careless. I see the legacy is not going to include that or recite the reasons for it’s failure.
What if the hospital is in an area with only Catholic doctors? Do they have to brings some baby killer in from some other state or country?