A three-judge panel ruled Thursday that the limited emergency healthcare exceptions outlined in Tennessee’s near-total abortion law are so vague that doctors have a legitimate fear of prosecution or professional discipline for performing medically necessary abortions.
The Chancery Court panel temporarily blocked the state’s medical board from disciplining doctors for providing emergency abortions, but declined to block criminal prosecution of physicians, saying it lacked the authority to do so.
The ruling also outlined four specific pregnancy-related conditions that qualify as “medical necessity” exceptions to the state’s abortion ban, noting the “confusion and lack of consensus within the Tennessee medical community on the circumstances requiring necessary health- and life-saving abortion care.”
“The evidence presented underscores how serious, difficult, and complex these issues are and raises significant questions as to whether the Medical Necessity Exception is sufficiently narrow to serve a compelling state interest,” the court ruled, invoking the legal standard of review to determine the Constitutionality of a law. To meet the standard the law must be essential and not overly broad.
Attorneys with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the doctors and women who filed suit, did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Thursday.
In an emailed statement, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti asserted Tennessee law is already consistent with the panel’s ruling.
The law already “allows pregnant women to receive all necessary care to address serious health risks,” the statement said. “The Court’s limited injunction order mirrors that understanding. We all agree that doctors should save lives and protect their patients. We will continue to defend the law enacted by the people’s elected representatives.”
The ruling represents a rare victory for reproductive right advocates in Tennessee, which has one of the strictest abortion bans in the nation, with no exception for rape, incest or severe fetal anomalies.
The lawsuit was filed last year by two doctors and a total of seven women denied emergency abortion care, some who joined the lawsuit after it was initiated.
The panel concluded the women’s fundamental rights are violated when they are denied abortions in health emergencies.
“Because Plaintiff Patients were denied necessary abortion care, they suffered severe risks to their life and health, including death, infection, severe bleeding, and potential loss of fertility,” they said.
“Plaintiff Patients’ right to life is a fundamental right,” the ruling said.
The court, in an effort to clarify what it characterized as the vague language of the law, also ruled the following serious medical conditions constitute emergency exceptions to the state’s abortion ban. They are:
- Previable preterm premature rupture of membranes (“PPROM”)
- Inevitable abortion, defined as dilation of the cervix prior to viability of the pregnancy, either by preterm labor of cervical insufficiency
- Fatal fetal diagnoses that lead to maternal health conditions, such as severe preeclampsia and mirror syndrome associated with fetal hydrops
- Fatal fetal diagnoses leading to an infection that will result in uterine rupture or potential potential loss of fertility
This article was originally published by the Tennessee Lookout.
