Attorneys defending Tennessee’s extensive abortion ban contended Thursday that the doctors challenging the law are resisting any oversight in their decisions to terminate pregnancies, potentially depriving women of crucial care during serious medical emergencies.
The Tennessee Attorney General’s office presented its arguments in an attempt to persuade a three-judge panel to dismiss a lawsuit seeking clarification on when abortion exceptions can be applied in the state.
Seven women and two doctors have initiated a legal battle, claiming that the current law violates pregnant patients’ right to life as guaranteed by the state’s constitution. They seek clarification from the judicial panel on the circumstances under which patients can legally obtain an abortion, including cases of fatal diagnoses.
While cautioning against reading too much into their questions, one chancellor expressed skepticism about the panel’s ability to clarify a law approved by the General Assembly.
“You’re essentially asking us to revise what the statute says … the major concern is whether we can fulfill your request,” remarked Chancellor Kasey Culbreath, one of the judges.
Both sides presented their arguments during a lengthy hearing on Thursday. A decision on whether to dismiss the case or temporarily block the abortion ban is expected after the panel reviews the full case.
Whitney Hermandorfer, representing the attorney general’s office, stated, “Plaintiffs, along with many in the medical profession, are resistant to any governmental scrutiny of their medical decision-making process. This approach differs from the standard practice in the abortion context.”
In response, the Center for Reproductive Rights, representing the women and doctors, argued that the General Assembly crafted the state’s abortion ban in an overly broad and vague manner, leaving doctors fearful that their decisions regarding abortions could face scrutiny and potential legal consequences.
“Physicians are refraining from or delaying abortion care in cases where it would be legally permissible,” said Linda Goldstein, an attorney with the center. “This is due to the vague terms of the medical necessity exception, which fail to provide adequate guidance.”
Several of the women involved in the lawsuit attended Thursday’s hearing, visibly moved as attorneys recounted their severe pregnancy complications and discussed the actions doctors should have taken in their respective cases.
One of the plaintiffs, Rebecca Milner, was diagnosed with a pregnancy complication after unsuccessful fertility treatments. Milner faced obstacles accessing abortion services due to Tennessee’s restrictive abortion ban, resulting in a delay in care and subsequent health complications.
As part of their argument to dismiss the lawsuit, the state’s legal team contended that the plaintiffs lacked standing. However, Chancellor Patricia Head Moska noted that the statement from the local district attorney, indicating non-prosecution of abortion providers, was not legally binding, leaving room for further legal action.
