In Tennessee's state court, a group comprising doctors and women sought to halt the enforcement of the state's nearly complete abortion ban in cases involving serious pregnancy complications.
Coalition Aims to Stop Implementation of State's Total Abortion Ban
Representing seven women who were refused abortions due to complications and two doctors, attorneys argued before a panel of three judges in Nashville's Twelfth Judicial District Court that the medical exemption within the state's abortion prohibition was too ambiguous, leading physicians to reject patients in need of urgent care.
Linda Goldstein, an attorney representing the plaintiffs from the Center for Reproductive Rights, stated, "Doctors are denying or delaying abortion care in cases where even defendants concede that it would be legally permissible."
On the other hand, Whitney Hermandorfer, representing Republican Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti's office, acknowledged the unfortunate nature of such pregnancy complications but emphasized their rarity.
She alleged that the state's medical exemption permits doctors to exercise "reasonable medical judgment" to stop pregnancies to avoid death or important and irrevocable danger to pregnant individuals.
Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal, part of the three-judge panel, conveyed difficulties in interpreting the statute, noting its inadequacy of clarity and approximate terms, specifically concerning what constitutes a "substantial" danger of wound.
Tennessee's near-total abortion ban came into effect in August 2022, after the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative-most decision earlier that year to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which approved abortion nationwide in 1973.
Read Also : Arizona Abortion Rights Amendment Supporters Assert They Exceeded Signatures for 2024 Ballot
Tennessee Lawmakers Integrated Specific Medical Exemption Into Legislation
Among the fourteen states that have implemented almost complete abortion bans, Tennessee's legislature included a specific medical exemption to the law in August 2023.
However, a coalition of women and doctors challenged this exemption in September, contending that it violated the state constitution due to its narrow and vague scope, echoing similar cases in states like Texas, Idaho, and Oklahoma concerning emergency medical exceptions to abortion bans.
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider arguments from President Joe Biden's administration on April 24, asserting that a federal law guaranteeing patients emergency access to "stabilizing care" supersedes Idaho's near-total abortion ban.
During the recent proceedings, Goldstein highlighted doctors' concerns in Tennessee, who feared legal repercussions and recommended patients seek medical care out of state due to the lack of clear guidance provided by the medical necessity exemption for providing life-saving or health-preserving abortion care.
One plaintiff, Nicole Blackmon, lacked the means to travel and, upon learning at 15 weeks of pregnancy that her fetus had a condition incompatible with survival, was compelled to continue her pregnancy, resulting in the birth of a stillborn baby at 31 weeks.
The nonprofit filed the lawsuit in September on behalf of Blackmon, six other women facing significant health complications who were denied abortions, and two obstetrician-gynecologists who assert that severe penalties hinder their ability to provide care.
In November, the state of Tennessee filed a motion to dissolve the case, citing governmental privilege. The complainants are suing not only the state but also the state's attorney general, the Board of Medical Examiners, and the board's president.
The Center for Reproductive Rights has filed similar lawsuits and complaints in Texas, Idaho, and Oklahoma, as more states adopt restrictive abortion bans or lack facilities for women to access abortion services.
