DOCSLIB.ORG

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case 4:14-cv-01910-DCB Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 27 1 Alice Clapman* David Brown* Helene T. Krasnoff* Julie Rikelman* 2 PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS 3 AMERICA 120 Wall Street 1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 300 New York, NY 10005 4 Washington, DC 20005 (917) 637-6000 (202) 973-4800 [email protected] 5 [email protected] [email protected] 6 [email protected] Attorneys for William Richardson, MD; Attorneys for Planned Parenthood Arizona, and William H Richardson MD, PC, doing 7 Inc. business as Tucson Women’s Center 8 Lawrence Rosenfeld SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP * Applications for admission pro 9 AZ Bar No. 004426 hac vice forthcoming/pending 10 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2700 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 11 (602) 528-4000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 15 16 Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc.; William Case No. 4:14-CV-01910-TUC-FRZ Richardson, M.D.; and William H. 17 Richardson M.D., P.C., doing business as PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR Tucson Women’s Center, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 18 ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY Plaintiffs, INJUNCTION AND 19 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT v. 1 20 THEREOF 21 Will Humble, Director of the Arizona (Oral Argument Requested) Department of Health Services, in his 22 official capacity, 23 Defendant. 24 25 1 For reasons discussed herein, Plaintiffs request that the Court set a hearing on their 26 application for preliminary injunction prior to April 1, 2014. If a full hearing on the 27 preliminary injunction cannot be set prior to that date, Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order to show cause why a temporary restraining order should not issue, with a 28 preliminary injunction hearing to be scheduled as soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court. Case 4:14-cv-01910-DCB Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 27 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 Page 3 PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND 4 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.............................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................................................................................. 2 5 A. Medication Abortion Background...................................................... 2 6 B. The Challenged Law and Its Impact on Plaintiffs and Their Patients ............................................................................................... 5 7 ARGUMENT....................................................................................................................... 7 8 I. PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND, IF NECESSARY, A TEMPORARY 9 RESTRAINING ORDER.............................................................................. 7 10 II. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS ............... 8 A. The Arizona Law Violates a Woman’s Right to Choose 11 Abortion ............................................................................................. 8 1. Neither a medication abortion ban nor an FPL mandate 12 serves women’s health. ........................................................... 8 13 2. Regardless of its reach, the Arizona law would also impose a substantial obstacle. ............................................... 11 14 B. The Act Violates Patients’ Right to Bodily Integrity....................... 13 15 C. The Arizona Law is Unconstitutionally Vague................................ 15 16 D. The Act Violates the Equal Protection Clause................................. 16 III. PLAINTIFFS FACE IRREPARABLE HARM FOR WHICH 17 THERE IS NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW ................................... 18 IV. THE BALANCE OF HARMS STRONGLY FAVORS PLAINTIFFS 18 AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS SERVED BY AN INJUNCTION..... 18 19 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -i- Case 4:14-cv-01910-DCB Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 Page 3 of 27 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Page(s) 3 Cases 4 Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 5 462 U.S. 416 (1983).............................................................................................. 8, 9, 11 6 Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 7 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) ...................................................................................... 18 8 Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001)...................................................................................................... 16 9 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 10 473 U.S. 432 (1985)................................................................................................ 16, 18 11 Cline v. Okla. Coal. for Reprod. Justice, 12 313 P.3d 253 (Okla. 2013)...................................................................................... 10, 12 13 Colautti v. Franklin, 14 439 U.S. 379 (1979)...................................................................................................... 15 15 Connecticut v. Menillo, 423 U.S. 9 (1975)............................................................................................................ 9 16 Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep’t of Health, 17 497 U.S. 261 (1990)................................................................................................ 13, 14 18 Del Rio v. Morgado, 19 CV 10-8955-FMO JPR, 2013 WL 1935295 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2013)......................... 13 20 Forbes v. Napolitano, 21 236 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................ 15, 16 22 Galassini v. Town of Fountain Hills, Ariz., CV-11-02097-PHX-JAT, 2011 WL 5244960 (D. Ariz. Nov. 3, 2011)........................ 19 23 Gonzales v. Carhart, 24 550 U.S. 124 (2007)................................................................................................ 11, 12 25 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 26 408 U.S. 104 (1972)...................................................................................................... 15 27 Isaacson v. Horne, 28 716 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 905 (2014)................... 1, 13, 17 i Case 4:14-cv-01910-DCB Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 Page 4 of 27 1 Johnson v. Couturier, 572 F. 3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................... 19 2 3 Johnson v. Meltzer, 134 F.3d 1393 (9th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................... 13 4 Mazurek v. Armstrong, 5 520 U.S. 968 (1997)........................................................................................................ 9 6 McCormack v. Hiedeman, 7 694 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................. 8, 11 8 Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 7, 18, 19 9 10 MKB Management Corp. v. Burdick, 2012 ND........................................................................................................................ 10 11 Olmos v. Ryan, No. CV 11-914-PHX-GMS (MEA), 12 2012 WL 177859 (D. Ariz. Jan. 23, 2012)........................................................................... 8 13 Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 14 670 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2012) ........................................................................................ 7 15 Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Betlach, 899 F. Supp. 2d 868 (D. Ariz. 2012) ............................................................................ 19 16 17 Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976).................................................................................................... 8, 11 18 Planned Parenthood Greater Memphis Region v. Dreyzehner, 19 853 F. Supp. 2d 724 (M.D. Tenn. 2012)....................................................................... 18 20 Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott, 21 951 F. Supp. 2d 891 (W.D. Tex. 2013)............................................................. 10, 12, 13 22 Planned Parenthood of Idaho v. Wasden, 376 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (D. Idaho 2005) ......................................................................... 18 23 24 Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Lawall, 180 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................... 15 25 Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 26 505 U.S. 833 (1992)............................................................................................... passim 27 Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region v. DeWine, 28 696 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2012) ...................................................................... 10, 12, 13, 15 ii Case 4:14-cv-01910-DCB Document 14 Filed 03/07/14 Page 5 of 27 1 Planned Parenthood of Wis. v. Van Hollen, 738 F.3d 786 (7th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................. 11, 17 2 3 Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992)................................................................................................ 13, 14 4 Rochin v. Calif., 5 342 U.S. 165 (1952)................................................................................................ 13, 14 6 Roe v. Wade, 7 410 U.S. 113 (1973)........................................................................................................ 9 8 Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Upholding a 40-Year-Old Promise: Why the Texas Sonogram Act Is Unlawful According to Planned Parenthood V
    Pace Law Review Volume 34 Issue 1 Winter 2014 Article 4 January 2014 Upholding a 40-Year-Old Promise: Why the Texas Sonogram Act is Unlawful According to Planned Parenthood v. Casey Vicki Toscano Nova Southeastern University Elizabeth Reiter Guttman & Wallace Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Vicki Toscano and Elizabeth Reiter, Upholding a 40-Year-Old Promise: Why the Texas Sonogram Act is Unlawful According to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 34 Pace L. Rev. 128 (2014) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol34/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Upholding a 40-Year-Old Promise: Why the Texas Sonogram Act is Unlawful According to Planned Parenthood v. Casey Vicki Toscano* and Elizabeth Reiter** I. Introduction Since 2003, a woman seeking an abortion in Texas must undergo one additional medical procedure at least 24 hours prior to receiving an abortion in order for the woman’s consent to an abortion to be considered “voluntary and informed” under the law.1 Although this medical procedure may not be deemed medically necessary by physicians, the state has declared it necessary for all women seeking an abortion.2 In the early stages of pregnancy, this procedure often requires the insertion of a large probe into the vagina of the pregnant woman, even against her will.3 * Vicki Toscano is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Nova Southeastern University.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    Case 2:15-cv-01022-JJT Document 3 Filed 06/04/15 Page 1 of 31 1 Diana Salgado* Alice Clapman* David Brown* Planned Parenthood Helene T. Krasnoff* Hillary Schneller* 2 Federation of America Planned Parenthood Federation of Center for Reproductive Rights 434 W. 33rd Street, America 199 Water Street, 22nd Floor 3 New York, NY 10001 1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 300 New York, NY 10038 (212) 541-7800 Washington, DC 20005 (917) 637-3600 4 [email protected] (202) 973-4800 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 5 Attorney for Planned [email protected] Parenthood Arizona, Inc. Attorneys for Paul A. Isaacson, M.D. Attorneys for Planned Parenthood 6 Arizona, Inc. 7 Lawrence Rosenfeld Andrew Beck* Daniel Pochoda AZ Bar No. 004426 Talcott Camp* AZ Bar No. 021979 8 Daniel B. Pasternak Brigitte Amiri* Victoria Lopez AZ Bar No. 023751 American Civil Liberties Union AZ Bar No. 330042** 9 Squire Patton Boggs (US) Foundation American Civil Liberties Union LLP 125 Broad Street, 18th Fl. Foundation of Arizona 10 1 East Washington Street, New York, NY 10004 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235 Suite 2700 (212) 549-2633 Phoenix, AZ 85014 11 Phoenix, AZ 85004 [email protected] (602) 650-1854 (602) 528-4000 [email protected] [email protected] 12 lawrence.rosenfeld@ [email protected] [email protected] squirepb.com 13 daniel.pasternak@ Attorneys for Eric Reuss, M.D., Attorneys for Eric Reuss, M.D., M.P.H.; squirepb.com M.P.H.; Desert Star Family Planning, Paul A. Isaacson, M.D.; Desert Star 14 LLC; DeShawn Taylor, M.D.
    [Show full text]
  • NWLC SC 3020 Final Comments
    September 9, 2019 South Carolina Senate Medical Affairs Committee Attention: Research Director P.O. Box 142 412 Gressette Building Columbia, SC 29202 Dear Board of Health Members, The National Women’s Law Center (“Law Center”), based in Washington, D.C., is a nonpartisan, non- profit legal and advocacy organization dedicated to the advancement and protection of women’s legal rights and opportunities. The Law Center is submitting comments in response to the Senate Medical Affairs Committee hearing on House Bill 3020. We urge the Senate Medical Affairs Committee to stop this harmful and blatantly unconstitutional bill. I. House Bill 3020 is blatantly unconstitutional. For over forty-five years, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual’s right to decide whether to have an abortion.1 But despite that clear constitutional standard, numerous states – including Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri – have moved to ban abortion well before viability. South Carolina now attempts to do the same. House Bill 3020 would ban abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy,2 which is unequivocally before viability. Like the laws passed in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, and Missouri, House Bill 3020 is unquestionably unconstitutional. It is a deliberate effort to overturn 46 years of established constitutional precedent, beginning with Roe v. Wade.3 In Roe, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion, and that the State cannot ban abortion prior to viability; and after viability, the State cannot ban abortion when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.4 The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the central holding in Roe v.
    [Show full text]
  • 1204094549 Dissertation Martinez
    Encounters with the State: A Study of Pathways to Pregnancy Prevention and Termination in Phoenix, Arizona by Melissa Janel Martinez A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Approved November 2016 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Madelaine Adelman, Chair Ann Hibner Koblitz Doris Marie Provine ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY December 2016 ABSTRACT This research project analyzes women’s dynamic pathways to pregnancy prevention and termination in Arizona. Two levels of analysis guide the study: The first is a cultural analysis of the socio-legal conditions that shape the channels to birth control and abortion. During this historical moment, I analyze the fight over increasing (and calls for more) legal constraints against contraception and abortion, coupled with decreasing individual access to reproductive health care information and services. This dissertation includes an examination of the struggle over reproductive health on the ground and in the legal arena, and real pushbacks against these constraints as well. The second is an analysis of how women seek out contraception or abortion within the US socio-legal landscape. The study qualitatively examines narratives from 33 women in the greater Phoenix, Arizona area, a region emblematic of the political contest over the legal regulation of women’s reproductive health currently unfolding nationally. Ultimately, the state is implicated in the various resources and barriers—people, places, processes and policies—that inform women’s pregnancy prevention. These experiences can illuminate the ways that reproductive health care is shaped by intersecting and sometimes competing ideologies, and how women encounter them in their daily lives.
    [Show full text]
  • E-Filed 2020 Jun 23 12:43 Pm Johnson - Clerk of District Court
    E-FILED 2020 JUN 23 12:43 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT EXHIBIT 4 E-FILED 2020 JUN 23 12:43 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JOHNSON COUNTY PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE HEARTLAND, INC., and DR. JILL MEADOWS. M.D., Petitioners, v. Case No. KIM REYNOLDS ex rel. STATE OF IOWA AFFIDAVIT OF DANIEL GROSSMAN, and IOWA BOARD OF MEDICINE, M.D. Respondents. 1. I am a Professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and an obstetrician-gynecologist with over twenty-five years of clinical experience. I currently provide clinical services, including abortion services, at San Francisco General Hospital. I am also a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), where I previously served as Vice Chair of the Committee on Practice Bulletins for Gynecology and as Chair of the ACOG Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women. I am currently a member of ACOG’s Telehealth Working Group and ACOG’s Abortion Access and Training Expert Work Group. I am also a Fellow of the Society of Family Planning and a member of the American Public Health Association (APHA). Additionally, I serve as Director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) at UCSF. ANSIRH conducts innovative, rigorous, multidisciplinary research on complex issues related to people’s sexual and reproductive lives. I am also a Senior Advisor at Ibis Reproductive Health, a nonprofit research organization. I am a liaison member of the Planned Parenthood National Medical Committee, and between 2012 and 2015, I provided clinical services with E-FILED 2020 JUN 23 12:43 PM JOHNSON - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Planned Parenthood Northern California (formerly Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific).
    [Show full text]
  • Download Legal Document
    Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc., et al. v. Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, in his official capacity, et al. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION INDEX OF EXHIBITS Exhibit Document 1 Declaration of Courtney Schreiber, M.D., M.P.H. 2 Declaration of Steven Joffe, M.D., M.P.H. 3 Declaration of Bryan Howard 4 Declaration of Paul A. Isaacson, M.D. 5 Declaration of Eric Reuss, M.D., M.P.H. Exhibit 1: Declaration of Courtney Schreiber, M.D., M.P.H. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Planned Parenthood Arizona, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants. Declaration of Courtney Schreiber, M.D., M.P.H. Courtney Schreiber, M.D., M.P.H., declares and states as follows: 1. I am over 18 years of age and competent to make this declaration. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order preventing enforcement of SB 1318, which would require physicians to “inform” women at least 24 hours prior to having an abortion that “it may be possible to reverse the effects of a medication abortion if the woman changes her mind but that time is of the essence,” and that “information on and assistance with reversing the effects of a medication abortion is available on the department of health services’ website.” S.B. 1318, § 4 (to be codified at Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 36-2153(A)(2)(h), (i)) (“Act”).
    [Show full text]
  • Uneasy Allies: Pro-Choice Physicians, Feminist Health Activists and the Struggle for Abortion Rights C.E
    Sociology of Health & Illness Vol. 26 No. 6 2004 ISSN 0141–9889, pp. 775–796 UneasyCBlackwellOxford,SHILSociology0141-9889©September266Original.E. Blackwell Joffe, allies UKArticle Publishing,ofT.A. 2004Publishing inHealth Weitzthe struggle & andLtd. Illness 2004 C.L. for abortionStacey rights Uneasy allies: pro-choice physicians, feminist health activists and the struggle for abortion rights C.E. Joffe1, T.A. Weitz2 and C.L. Stacey3 1Professor of Sociology, University of California Davis 2Centre for Reproductive Health Research and Policy, University of California San Francisco 3Department of Sociology, University of California Davis Abstract Abortion represents a particularly interesting subject for a social movements analysis of healthcare issues because of the involvement of both feminist pro-choice activists and a segment of the medical profession. Although both groups have long shared the same general goal of legal abortion, the alliance has over time been an uneasy one, and in many ways a contradictory one. This paper traces points of convergence as well as points of contention between the two groups, specifically: highlighting the tensions between the feminist view of abortion as a women-centred service, with a limited, ‘technical’ role for the physicians, and the abortion- providing physicians’ logic of further medicalization/professional upgrading of abortion services as a response to the longstanding marginality and stigmatisation of abortion providers. Only by noting the evolving relationships between these two crucial sets of actors can one fully understand the contemporary abortion rights movement. We conclude by speculating about similar patterns in medical/lay relationships in other health social movements where ‘dissident doctors’ and lay activists are similarly seeking recognition for medical services that are controversial.
    [Show full text]
  • An Exception-Ally Difficult Situation: Do the Exceptions, Or Lack Thereof
    Georgia State University Law Review Volume 30 Article 4 Issue 2 Winter 2013 June 2014 An Exception-ally Difficult Situation: Do the Exceptions, or Lack Thereof, to the Speech-And- Display Requirements for Abortion Invalidate their Use as Informed Consent? Danielle Le Jeune Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Danielle Le Jeune, An Exception-ally Difficult Situation: Do the Exceptions, or Lack Thereof, to the Speech-And-Display Requirements for Abortion Invalidate their Use as Informed Consent?, 30 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. (2014). Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol30/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in Georgia State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Reading Room. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Le Jeune: An Exception-ally Difficult Situation: Do the Exceptions, or Lack AN “EXCEPTION”-ALLY DIFFICULT SITUATION: DO THE EXCEPTIONS, OR LACK THEREOF, TO THE “SPEECH-AND-DISPLAY REQUIREMENTS” FOR ABORTION INVALIDATE THEIR USE AS INFORMED CONSENT? * Danielle C. Le Jeune TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 522 I. INFORMED CONSENT, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ABORTION, AND EXCEPTIONS ....................................................... 526 A. The Traditional Doctrine of Informed Consent ................. 526 B. Additional Requirements for
    [Show full text]
  • Brief in Opposition ------ ------Julie Rikelman Helene T
    No. 14-284 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- WILLIAM HUMBLE, DIRECTOR OF THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Petitioner, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD ARIZONA, INC.; WILLIAM RICHARDSON, M.D.; AND WILLIAM H. RICHARDSON M.D., P.C., d/b/a TUCSON WOMEN’S CENTER, Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JULIE RIKELMAN HELENE T. KRASNOFF DAVID BROWN Counsel of Record CENTER FOR ALICE CLAPMAN REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS PLANNED PARENTHOOD 120 Wall Street FEDERATION OF AMERICA New York, NY 10005 1110 Vermont Avenue NW, (917) 637-6000 Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 Attorneys for Respondents (202) 973-4800 William Richardson, M.D.; [email protected] and William H. Richardson M.D., P.C., d/b/a Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Women’s Center Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. LAWRENCE ROSENFELD SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP 1 E. Washington Street, Suite 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 528-4000 Attorney for all Respondents ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i COUNTER-STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Should the Court grant certiorari to review an interlocutory Court of Appeals decision entering a preliminary injunction when there is a significant, unresolved dispute as to the meaning and scope of the challenged law and the case may be mooted by the outcome of a pending state court adjudication? (2) Should the Court grant certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ application of the undue burden standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Abortion: the Ultimate Exploitation of Women Acknowledgements 7 © Brian E
    T H E U L T I M A T E EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN ABORTION T H E U LT I M AT E EXPLOITATION OF WOMEN ABORTION MEN STARTED IT. MEN OPPRESS WITH IT. MEN CAN END IT. BRIAN E. FISHER Contents Abortion: The Ultimate Exploitation of Women Acknowledgements 7 © Brian E. Fisher 2013 Introduction “Your Book Title Makes No Sense” 9 All rights reserved. Written permission must be secured from Chapter 1 Just a Women’s Issue? 17 the publisher to use or reproduce any part of this book, except Chapter 2 Our Laws Are Always Right … Right? 31 for brief quotations in critical reviews or articles. MEN STARTED IT Scripture taken from the New King James Version®. Chapter 3 A Long History of Men Behaving Badly 39 Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. 49 Used by permission. All rights reserved. Chapter 4 A Woman’s Right – Made Legal by Men MEN OPPRESS WITH IT ISBN-13: 978-0-9891819-0-7 Chapter 5 Weeding the Garden 71 Jacket and Interior Design: Chapter 6 “I’ll Still Love You in the Morning” 91 Roark Creative, roarkcreative.com Chapter 7 Educated Choice? 99 Published by Online for Life Chapter 8 It’s “Safe” and “Rare”? 109 Printed in the United States of America MEN CAN END IT Chapter 9 The Man Void 133 www.onlineforlife.org Chapter 10 Men Can End It 159 Online for Life Resources 183 P.O. Box 5052 Endnotes 185 Frisco, TX 75035 Index 205 acknowledgements I am once again indebted to John Aman for his excellent and diligent work as researcher, editor, collaborator, criticizer, and encourager.
    [Show full text]
  • Informed Consent Arizona Abortion Laws
    Informed Consent Arizona Abortion Laws Basipetal Vincent fret irrelevantly. Mohammad usually catholicise heliocentrically or preconizes unquietly when sceptred Washington blubs pruriently and granularly. Bloodsucking and unlightened Timmie outwear almost crabwise, though Demosthenis jumbled his chaplainship whists. Star will lead to states are at issue in force a valid interests of her for the context of arizona abortion clinics to This law was consent laws abortion would allow patient may restrict access to inform their informed decision making the fetus is waived. Freidman wrote up on the physical abuse facility restraint and mina tenorio of women dying fetus if they need an abortion care further. Thanks for a woman faces in other women who live justiciable controversy over minor doctrine is for. Support of abortion eliminate barriers making informed consent laws against body parts. You are privileged and click save fetuses that the court to inform their desired number of. State laws result will not. Health of sex ed must be additional premium plan, and abortion laws disproportionately harm than live with the women, then an explanation for. Lab studies suggest that abortion laws requiring mental health information and informed and sexual intercourse with the provider from the life education resource center. Supreme court stated that has somewhat by. What if consent laws abortion is arizona classifies all information that are informed consent. For the best serve the united states have an adoption as to confuse patients for mental health services they reside first indication is. Within seven years, arizona law is one should inform their reproductive sciences and state that women have been a time.
    [Show full text]
  • The Creation of an Undue Burden: Arizona House Bill 2036 and State Abortion Regulations Post-Casey
    William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice Volume 20 (2013-2014) Issue 1 William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law: 2013 Special Issue: Reproductive Article 8 Justice December 2013 The Creation of an Undue Burden: Arizona House Bill 2036 and State Abortion Regulations Post-Casey Michael A. Althouse Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl Part of the Law and Gender Commons Repository Citation Michael A. Althouse, The Creation of an Undue Burden: Arizona House Bill 2036 and State Abortion Regulations Post-Casey, 20 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 173 (2013), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol20/iss1/8 Copyright c 2013 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl THE CREATION OF AN UNDUE BURDEN: ARIZONA HOUSE BILL 2036 AND STATE ABORTION REGULATIONS POST-CASEY INTRODUCTION I. DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROE AND CASEY FRAMEWORK II. STATE ABORTION LAWS POST-CASEY III. ARIZONA HOUSE BILL 2036 A. The Law B. Isaacson v. Horne IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS OF HOUSE BILL 2036 A. House Bill 2036 Compared to Other Post-Casey State Laws 1. The Timed Ultrasound Requirement 2. Facilities Providing Abortion Must Post Certain Signs 3. The Doctor Must Inform the Woman of the Medical Prognosis of the Fetus 4. The Gestational Age of the Fetus Must Be Less than Twenty Weeks 5. The Woman, the Woman’s Spouse, and the Woman’s Parents, if She Is a Minor, May Sue a Doctor for Violating These Restrictions B.
    [Show full text]