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
KCFleming’s suggestion that doctors won’t perform abortions because they fear their medical ‘image’ would be soiled is akin to a guy who doesn’t want to get shot because it would ruin his suit.
What’s interesting to me about this casecis that the (defendant) hospitals refer patients seeking abortions to Planned Parenthood.
They were also quoted as saying that they were willing to perform abortions on site at their hospitals, but were unable to find providers who would do so.
The apparent objective of the plantiff (ACLU) is to press the issue of forcing on -site abortions, and to press it to the max.
Beyond whatever accomadations and concessions the hospitals had already made.
Once the ACLU is satisfied that the Skagit Co. hospitals “have their minds right” (Strother Martin, 1967), they may be able to focus more of their resources on the all important school bathroom/ gender-bender issue.
Here’s your quote put in a broader context:
“Physicians who provide abortion care are targets of stigma, harassment and violence. As a result, many providers do not speak openly about their work. We hypothesize that stigma and silence produce a vicious cycle: when abortion providers do not disclose their work in everyday encounters, their silence perpetuates a stereotype that abortion work is unusual or deviant, or that legitimate, mainstream doctors do not perform abortions. This contributes to marginalization of abortion providers within medicine and the ongoing targeting of providers for harassment and violence. This reinforces reluctance to disclose abortion work, and the cycle continues. We call this phenomenon a “legitimacy paradox.” The paradox is that although many highly trained, legitimate physicians provide abortion care, abortion providers continue to be depicted as illegitimate, deviant or substandard doctors. The legitimacy paradox has adverse consequences for abortion human resources, for women’s experiences of abortion care and for abortion law and policy. ”
Only a very small mind would read that and conclude that ‘image’ was the difficulty, not violence and the vile propaganda that is unleashed by those loving NICE Christians.
“They just don’t like being threatened,”
I’m sure that’s part of it.
But you have prove it with research to back up such a claim.
Prove it.
Show me the research paper proving your claim. Not an opinion piece, but with survey data of practicing MDs and Midlevels.
Go ahead. I already researched it some.
I already know the most likely primary reason(s).
But see what you find.
Let me know if you can back up your wild claim.
Ha ha ha.
I knew you’d say that.
Google the text. It was from a pro-abortion piece.
SJWs are so predictable.
Sub-standard? What dark hole did you pull that out of, KCFleming?
They just don’t like being threatened, or having their family threatened, or shot down in church. Nor do they like having their businesses bombed and their addresses published in Facebook.
Gee, I wonder why other doctors and the general public look down on MDs who do abortions, even though it is legal?
They’re not afraid of threats as much as they don’t like being viewed as “sub-standard.”
Killing fetuses day in and day out is not as glamorous as you might think.
“Do that now or go kill yourself”
In which phillyT engages passive homicidal ideation when demanded to write down what he says he believes, yet has no problem forcing Christian doctors to o something they abhor.
Typical liberal hypocrite.
Gee. Who is it that is suggesting the ‘option’ to eliminate ALL women’s health care as a remedy?
Didn’t Mr. Nash suggest it? I haven’t seen one heartless, murdering liberal suggest it.
Mr. Nash is a regular King Solomon.
Anybody ask why they can’t find any doctors willing to perform any abortions – even medical abortions? (Not terribly gory at all, Karen.)
Could it be that doctors are fearful for their lives and the lives of their families since those NICE right-wingers so often harass, threaten, and indeed kill any doctor willing to perform abortions. Recently, one nut even killed several visitors to a Planned Parenthood clinic.
Oh dear. And those NICE right-wing justices on Scotus said their was no harm in letting those NICE praying, loving Christians closer to the Planned Parenthood clinics.
I guess Planned Parenthood hires escorts for those coming to their clinics because PP hasn’t learned all about the LOVE those NICE protesters are willing to share.
https://sentinelblog.com/2016/06/25/the-elite-dont-want-you-to-know-god-is-real-heres-the-proof-youtube/
I don’t know if the Sgakit Co. hospital has the resources to compete with the deep pockets of the ALCU.
If not, one option might be for them to eliminate all OB/GYN/ maternity services, which would apparently protect them from the obligation to perform abortions.
That might cause some real problems for the residents of the county, but the ACLU may view that as a small price to pay.
“Anyway, the judge’s ruling was that IF they offer maternity services, they must offer abortion. So Karen, your argument is moot.”
I am sincerely asking you to watch this video, so that you can understand my point of view. I am not speaking about the legalization of abortion, but rather if anyone can be forced to perform one against his will.
There are a great many legal medical procedures that are not offered in every single hospital or medical facility. Sometimes referrals are given, and sometimes people are referred to their insurance provider for a referral. In my opinion, this would fall under the same umbrella.
Why would a judge force a hospital or medical facility to offer every single legal medical service in OB/GYN services, but not any other specialty?
PhillyT:
“But if we keep going down this road allowing bigoted christians a way to exercise their bigotry and hate under the guise of religious freedom, it’s just a matter of time.”
Actually, the doctor in the video above is Jewish. Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and agnostics all can come to their own conclusion about their comfort level with abortion. There are pro-life people of all faiths and lack of faiths. Also, almost all pro-choice people want at least some limits on abortion, such as late term, and that includes people all along the faith spectrum.
Can you please tone down the emotional rhetoric? My question is, can you please watch the video that I provided, which shows the provider’s experience in performing abortion? And then please explain your reasoning on why we should force hospitals and doctors to participate if they do not want to. I would like to hear your reasons. And why that is the same as not providing lunch to a minority? Is it only OK to force a business owner(s) (the owners of hospitals) to participate in abortion, or is it OK to force doctors to do it, too? What if the doctor or business owner was African American? Is it still OK to force them to perform an abortion against their will?
Personally, I feel that there are two separate issues – the legalization of abortion, and the individual right of people to participate or not participate.
“KFC I love it when bigots like you make demands on me. Please list a few more ultimatums. And then kiss my grits.”
You are enraged by the idea of being demanded to write something, something you say you believe, yet you have no problem forcing thousands of people to do something they don’t believe.
Typical liberal hypocrite.
Only because a fetus is not a baby. Nor is an embryo.
But, yeah, you’re right.
phillyT – by calling blacks subhumans they were able to enslave them, beat them, lynch them and kill them with impunity. When you name something as less then human you can do what you want to it. So, an unborn baby becomes a fetus. Now you can abort it at will.
The thinking used by slavers is the same used by abortionists. The slave states were the Democratic strongholds, Democrats are the main purveyors of abortion on demand. See a pattern here?
Even Roe v. Wade allowed that, at some point, there was a state interest in protecting an unborn baby.
They generally broke that “level of interest” down into trimesters.
If the 2016 point of viability outside of the womb was present in 1973, the Court might have drawn the point of the “state’s interest” differently.
If it’s only “a baby” once it clears the birth canal, then it’s essentially open season for 9+ months.
The Clinton veto of the Congressional partial birth abortion legislation is in line with the view that, at one end of the spectrum, any stage of prebirth abortion can not be restricted.
Outside of homicide/auto accident etc. injury or death of a fetus, where responsibilty for death of a fetus can result in criminal charges, there are some restrictions in some states.
At the SCOTUS or federal legislation level, I don’t know if there are any restrictions.
While it’s true that the (absurd) Hyde amendment allowed hospitals and healthcare practitioners and out on abortions, it didn’t end there. Since then the RFRA has given pharmacists and out on providing birth control. And other court rulings have given various parties and out based on their so-called religious convictions. For now, the bulk of this is directed at women, sadly, but LGBT people have been routinely discriminated against, as have other minorities. Not in hospitals? Maybe, maybe not. But if we keep going down this road allowing bigoted christians a way to exercise their bigotry and hate under the guise of religious freedom, it’s just a matter of time.
Anyway, the judge’s ruling was that IF they offer maternity services, they must offer abortion. So Karen, your argument is moot. And I can say, having watched numerous medical videos, that removing a tumor is extremely gross, as are bowel resections, and many other surgeries. Not many people want to watch medical videos of any type. Abortions included. Liposcution is pretty disgusting, come to think of it
Some may find it relatively more disgusting to rip out a viable baby than to remove a tumor, but why split hairs?
Oh, and one more thing. Not all of the hospitals in my rural area offer all services. I was in urgent care a few months ago, and I saw a sign on the wall with a spreadsheet of what each hospital offers. For instance, cardiac care, pediatric care, etc. We also get mailings from both hospitals to help inform people on where to go.
Should each small hospital be shut down because it cannot offer all services to everyone?
PhillyT:
It’s not that Catholic hospitals buy up clinics in a concerted effort to stymie health care services for women.
Catholic hospitals or their facsimile have a history of about 2,000 years. They have run very famous hospitals for the poor in France for hundreds of years, for example. It’s part of their mission of helping the poor, especially during very dark times.
I’m not sure you understand what occurs in an abortion. If you did, perhaps you would understand how you really cannot force anyone to perform it. It’s a personal decision, which is what the whole Right to Choose is supposed to be about. The idea of forcing anyone to have an abortion is supposed to be anathema to Right to Choose, so forcing someone to perform it should be, too. That should extend to the business owner of the facility, as well.
I don’t watch videos at home because they eat up my bandwidth. But I believe this is the video that I’m looking for, in which a former abortion provider describes a 2nd trimester abortion. Perhaps, then, you can understand why forcing someone to perform an abortion against their conscience either themselves, or at a facility that they own, is a violation of their individual rights. Forcing someone to participate is an entirely separate issue from the legalization of abortion itself.
Please watch this, and then tell me if you still think that you have to force people to participate or else it is the same as refusing to serve lunch to a minority.
I suppose it would be OK to but a hospital and decide you don’t want to serve black people.
Or Mexicans.
Or gays.
Or unmarried women.
Or Muslims.
Why force a doctor to treat a drug addict? Or someone with mental illness?
Why not let the Jehovah Witnesses buy up all the hospitals in your town and refuse blood transfusions to everyone?
Why not let the Christian Science practitioners shut down all the cancer treatment facilities in town and offer you prayer instead?
How about if we leave the legal lines where they belong? You want to get into the hospital business, offer ALL services covered under the law? Don’t want to offer women’s services? Go open a church.
The 1973 Church Amendment, passed in the wake of Roe v. Wade, specifically allowed health care providers to decline to perform abortions.
I’m not aware of any similiar legislation that provides for refusal to treat Blacks, gays, Muslims, etc.
But feel free to cite it for us when you find it, Philly T.
A judge recently appointed to the Superior Court (c.18 months ago) is not likely to have the final word on this issue.
Well, tnash, as soon as there’s a flurry of Muslim organizations buying up hospitals, doctors groups and hospital systems the way the Catholics do, and trying to make sure women cannot access perfectly legal services, i guess we’ll find out what kind of hypocrites the ACLU is. But they stood of fro drug-addict Rush Limpbough and nazis in Skokie, so it’s hard to know just how PC they really are.
Philly T.-no need to wait….we already know what kind of hypocrites they are.