The first document of the EMW suit against the state, filed on March 14, focused only on HB5 which had passed both houses by March 13. Document 1 stated reasons for the Court to immediately grant a temporary restraining order (TRO) or a preliminary injunction as well as a permanent injunction.
The Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that if the law were to take effect, EMW and Ernest W. Marshall, MD, would be forced to turn away patients seeking ‘abortion care’. This would cause the patients irreparable harm, including the loss of their constitutional right to obtain an abortion and their ability to make fundamental decisions about their health care.
No matter which lawsuit is pursued, the abortion side focuses on the woman, never the child. Later, in point 48 (of 49 points) it is alleged that the Plaintiffs will be subjected to irreparable harm, and in point 1 they say that Kentuckians will be. They will argue that the balance of harm tips decidedly in EMW’s favor.
Doc 1 was quickly followed with Doc 2 which was a Memorandum of Law in support of the motion for a TRO (etc). In it, EMW’s attorneys cited numerous legal precedents and argue that the Casey trial, a related case, explained that protection for the abortion right reflects the fact that
“[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 851 (1992)
Here we find a new opportunity to see Life afresh. What is at the heart of liberty? Is it really the right to define one’s own concept of existence (etc)? Or, is it not the societal duty to maintain social order for the good of human beings with a view to future generations? Is license the heart of liberty or is it not intelligent restraint?
SB9 combined with HB5
It quickly became necessary for EMW to include SB9 with HB5 in the suit against the state, when SB9 was sent to Gov. Bevin for his signature on March 14. Document 5, filed March 15, the “Verified Amended Complaint” with 58 points, does this. In it, the laws are re-named “The Reason Ban” and “The 6-week Ban”.
The Plaintiffs’ argument is the same: “In direct conflict with Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and more than four decades of precedent affirming Roe’s central holding, the two Bans criminalize pre-viability abortions.”
In the next post we will look at some of their reasons to grant the TRO and/or injunctions.