Case 2:15-cv-00497-MHT-TFM Document 54 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 70 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION WEST ALABAMA WOMEN’S CENTER et al., CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 2:15-CV-497-MHT DR. THOMAS M. MILLER, in his official capacity as State Health Officer of the State of Alabama, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Case 2:15-cv-00497-MHT-TFM Document 54 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 70 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..........................................................................................................iv INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1 PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION ...............................................................................2 FACTS ..............................................................................................................................................3 I. ABORTION IN ALABAMA ............................................................................................3 II. THE CLINIC CLOSURE REQUIREMENT .................................................................5 A. The History of the Clinics.................................................................................................6 B. SB 205 and Anti-Abortion Protests .................................................................................8 III. THE D&E BAN .................................................................................................................10 IV. THE MEDICAL RECORDS REQUIREMENT ...........................................................16 V. IRREPARABLE HARM ..................................................................................................20 ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................................22 I. PLAINTIFFS ARE LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS OF THEIR UNDUE BURDEN CLAIMS. ..........................................................................................23 A. The Clinic Closure Requirement Imposes an Undue Burden ......................................24 1. Effect of SB 205 on the Plaintiff Clinics ......................................................................24 2. Effect of SB 205 on Women Seeking Abortions ...........................................................26 a. Travel Burden ...........................................................................................................27 b. Capacity Constraints ................................................................................................31 c. Medically Unsupervised Self-Abortion ....................................................................32 3. State Justifications .......................................................................................................34 B. The D&E Ban Imposes an Undue Burden ......................................................................40 C. The Medical Records Requirement Imposes an Undue Burden ..................................44 1. The Medical Records Requirement Will Jeopardize the Privacy and, in Some Cases, Well-Being and Safety of WAWC’s Patients ....................................................45 ii Case 2:15-cv-00497-MHT-TFM Document 54 Filed 07/06/16 Page 3 of 70 2. The Medical Records Requirement Is Unjustified .......................................................49 II. ALL THREE REQUIREMENTS WOULD IRREPARABLY HARM PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR PATIENTS. .......................................................................54 III. THE BALANCE OF EQUITIES WEIGHS HEAVILY IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR. .............................................................................................................................58 IV. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. ..........................................59 V. A BOND IS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS CASE. .........................................................60 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................60 iii Case 2:15-cv-00497-MHT-TFM Document 54 Filed 07/06/16 Page 4 of 70 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases A Choice for Women v. Butterworth, 2000 WL 34403086 (S.D. Fla 2000) ........................................................................................ 41 ABC Charters, Inc. v. Bronson, 591 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (S.D. Fla. 2008) ..................................................................................... 55 American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Thornburgh, 737 F.2d 283 (3d Cir. 1984) ..................................................................................................... 58 Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) .................................................................................................................. 36 Bell South Telecommunication, Inc. v. MCIMetro Access Transmission Services, LLC, 425 F.3d 964 (11th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................. 60 Causeway Medical Suite v. Foster, 221 F.3d 811 (5th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 41 City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983), overruled in part on other grounds by Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ....................................................... 12 City of Atlanta v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 636 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................. 60 City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) .................................................................................................................. 36 Daniel v. Underwood, 102 F. Supp.2d 680 (S.D. W. Va. 2000) ................................................................................... 41 Deerfield Medical Center v. City of Deerfield Beach, 661 F.2d 328 (5th Cir. 1981) ............................................................................................. passim Eubanks v. Stengel, 224 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2000) .................................................................................................... 41 Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) ...................................................................................................... 40, 42, 44 Harris v. Board of Supervisors, 366 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 57 iv Case 2:15-cv-00497-MHT-TFM Document 54 Filed 07/06/16 Page 5 of 70 Hope Clinic v. Ryan, 249 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................................... 41 Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898 (11th Cir. 1995) ............................................................................................... 22-23 Jackson Women’s Health Organization Inc. v. Amy, 330 F. Supp. 2d 820 (S.D. Miss. 2004) .................................................................................... 29 Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Currier, 760 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied No. 14-997, 2016 WL 3496801 (U.S. June 28, 2016) ................................................................................................................. 29 June Medical Services LLC v. Kliebert, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2016 WL 320942 (M.D. La. Jan. 26, 2016) .................................... 26, 32 Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 58 Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................... 39 KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 458 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................ 59 Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092 n.13 (11th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................ 58 Margaret S. v. Edwards, 488 F. Supp. 181 (E.D. La. 1980) ............................................................................................. 45 McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 1998) ............................................................................................... 22 Mid–Fla Coin Exchange v. Griffin, 529 F. Supp. 1006 (M.D. Fla. 1981) ......................................................................................... 55 National Abortion Federation v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 112 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2000) ..................................................................................... 59 Northeast Florida Chapter of Associated General Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by 508 U.S. 656 (1993) ....... 54-55 Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Cox, 487 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1096 (2008) ..................................... 41, 42 Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Humble, 753 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................