Court: Mississippi Can't Close Only Abortion Clinic
Judges: state shouldn't force women to go elsewhere
By Rob Quinn, Newser Staff
Posted Jul 30, 2014 12:35 AM CDT
Sister Mary Dorothea Sondgeroth, right, leads abortion opponents in prayer on the sidewalk in front of the Jackson Women's Health Organization clinic in Jackson, Mississippi.   (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis, file)

(Newser) – A law that would have forced the only abortion clinic in Mississippi to close appears doomed after a federal court ruled against it once again. An appeals court panel decided 2-1 that State House Bill 1390, which requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, would shift Mississippi's constitutional obligations onto other states by forcing the Jackson clinic to close, CNN reports. "Pre-viability, a woman has the constitutional right to end her pregnancy by abortion," but the law "effectively extinguishes that right within Mississippi's borders," the judges wrote.

The court didn't strike down the law itself, but "I think the way they ruled on those arguments essentially dooms the law," a constitutional law expert tells Jackson's Clarion-Ledger. He describes the ruling as a huge victory for the Jackson clinic, where doctors had been denied admitting privileges by all seven hospitals within a 30-minute drive. Gov. Phil Bryant—who said he wanted the state to be "abortion-free" when he signed the bill into law—says he's disappointed by the ruling and wants the case to go in front of the entire court instead of a "divided panel of judges." A similar law goes into effect in Louisiana on Sept. 1, and legal experts believe it won't face the same issues as the Mississippi law because at least one of the state's five abortion clinics will be able to remain open, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reports.

View 1 more image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Court: Mississippi Can't Close Only Abortion Clinic is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 152 comments
Jul 30, 2014 1:13 PM CDT
Women who need hospital care after an abortion are quite few and far between. And they can get that care without having that particular doctor on staff at the hospital---the hospital will assign them a doctor. So WHY is it a requirement in the first place?
Jul 30, 2014 12:20 PM CDT
I agree with the law that the doctor providing an abortion should have admission privileges at a local hospital. My question is why the doctors at this clinic are being denied those privileges. Are they being denied for a valid reason, or are they being denied just because the hospitals don't believe in abortions? The fact that 7 hospitals denied them is more than enough pause to look into that. Also, why can't the clinic hire doctors who already have those privileges? Something about this story doesn't add up, and I have a feeling those on both sides are at fault. But instead of working together to solve the problems, they would rather fight an expensive battle in the courts and waste taxpayer resources to fight something that could be solved with compromise(though the governor doesn't sound like the compromising type unfortunately).
Jul 30, 2014 10:48 AM CDT
I have mostly conservative views. But I don't think old men in DC should be able to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body.