A quick review of bogged-down cases:

1. On Oct. 30, AG Daniel Cameron requested SCOTUS to review the Dismemberment Abortion law which the Appeals Court overturned last June. This law passed the Ky legislature in April of 2018. In Nebraska, a law prohibiting D&E abortion on live unborn babies went into effect last month. This means that 14 states have passed such legislation, but only four have enacted their law: Nebraska, Miss., W. Va. and Ohio. Why not Ky? Think positive and pray.
2. On Nov. 20, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood and the EMW, along with attorneys from Calif., Washington D.C., New York, and Louisville (total 13 attorneys), filed a document in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to request an En Banc hearing of the Transfer Agreements case which the Appeals Court panel upheld on October 16. The TA law passed the Ky Legislature in July of 1998. It had been ignored before Bevin took office.
3. In the spring of 2019 Ky’s Heartbeat and No Discrimination laws passed and were quickly challenged and combined in a legal maneuver by the ACLU. Last spring Western District Judge Hale stated he would wait to hear the Appeals Court verdict on an Ohio law, Preterm-Cleveland v. Himes, which would ban abortion on Down Syndrome babies, before deciding the case. However, a Tenn. law similar to Ky’s Heartbeat/No Discrimination laws was partially upheld by the Appeals Court on Nov. 20, to ban abortions based on Down Syndrome or race. This action could affect Judge Hale’s decision. The Appeals panel did not uphold the entire Tenn. law. Ky AG Daniel Cameron led an 18-state coalition in an Amicus brief, asking the Appeals Court to uphold the entire law.

Some existing laws are also in a state of suspension. Ky’s law to require that women be made aware of the Abortion Pill Reversal method by her abortion doctor, which passed in spring 2019, is not currently enforced since a woman can order abortion pills online with only an online medical consultation. See Ruling here. It’s likely that not many women know this, or abortion statistics for the EMW would be lower. This national ruling also overrides, we assume, Ky’s law against TelMed, WebCam or “telehealth” abortions.

Ky law also requires that a physician certify that an abortion is necessary, and this doctor must also describe the basis for his/her best clinical judgment. Numerous articles state that most abortions are done for social or economic reasons.

Though ‘clinical’ once referred to medical treatment, it now only means that a person has been observed in a clinic setting.

Laws may be suspended when their criteria are blurred or prevented by societal change. Such change engenders legal challenges to good laws.

Let’s continue to insist on the rule of law and work hard for pro-life goals.

Updated January 30, 2021

UPDATE: Appeals Court denies rehearing

On Dec. 31, 2020, the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court denied the petition by the EMW and Planned Parenthood to review the Transfer Agreement case EN BANC. The plaintiffs have 90 days from that date to decide whether to pursue the case to the Supreme Court.

---

Updated October 28, 2020, and again on Nov. 27, 2020

UPDATE: ACLU files new briefs with Appeals Court

On behalf of PP and EMW, the ACLU requested to file a petition for a rehearing of the TA case EN BANC (by all judges of the 6th Circuit Court). A motion was granted on Oct. 22 to extend the time for the ACLU to file for the rehearing to Nov. 22 (2020). The new brief was filed on Nov. 20, with 13 attorneys from Calif., NY, Wash. DC and Ky. signed on to the case on behalf of the Ky clinics.

---

Updated October 19, 2020

News travels across the internet

This news is now broadly announced on many websites. LifeNews.com has a summary of the Ruling:

Because of the ruling, Planned Parenthood and EMW, the only two abortion facilities in the state, will have to either enter agreements with local hospitals, apply for waivers or close.

KRLA thanks Attorney General Daniel Cameron for his role in achieving this breakthrough.

---

ORIGINAL POST

A GOOD surprise for pro-lifers was announced late yesterday (10-16-20): The Sixth Circuit Appeals Court upheld Kentucky’s Transfer Agreement Law! An excerpt from the Courier-Journal story follows.

A federal appeals panel has upheld a controversial Kentucky abortion law that opponents argued officials had used to try to close down the commonwealth's only abortion clinic and prevent another from opening.

In a 2-1 vote, the panel for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Kentucky may require abortion clinics to obtain signed agreements with hospitals and ambulance services to transport and admit patients in an emergency.

In doing so, the panel struck down the 2018 decision by U.S. District Judge Greg Stivers that such rules were unnecessary and posed an undue burden on women seeking abortions. Stivers' ruling followed a legal challenge by EWM Women's Surgical Center and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.

The decision comes more than a year after the case was argued before the 6th Circuit panel in Cincinnati.

Read more. The Court opinion may be read here.

Despite Planned Parenthood not having a Transfer Agreement and the case being actively litigated, Gov. Beshear issued it a license to perform abortions earlier this year. Judge Stivers had permitted the EMW to remain open, since at the time it was Ky's only abortion clinic. Though both entities had tried to obtain a Transfer Agreement with a Louisville hospital, neither had been able to.

Stay tuned as we update this very significant and exciting news!

UPDATE: 8-31-2020 | AG Cameron continues to actively pursue litigation. More

---

In late June we reported on the Supreme Court decision that ruled against Louisiana’s 2014 ‘Unsafe Abortion Protection Act’, the June v. Russo case.

Pro-lifers had hoped SCOTUS would require abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges with nearby hospitals. Instead, the Justices’ decision has caused a wave of motions by ACLU and/or abortion clinic attorneys across the country, asking courts to recognize the SCOTUS decision as pertinent to litigation or laws that are related.

To counter this aggressive effort, AG Cameron stepped forward to request that the Sixth Circuit grant his motion to defend Kentucky’s Transfer Agreement Law from Legal Challenge by ACLU, Planned Parenthood and the EMW. It was granted. This case was begun in the Bevin administration so it was necessary to update those involved.

The Appeals Court heard arguments in the case last August. We suspected it was waiting to hear what SCOTUS would say about the Louisiana case before issuing a ruling.

We remain hopeful to see our Transfer Agreement law upheld. As mentioned in previous posts, of the judges on the panel, two were appointed by President Trump. They seemed genuinely interested during the oral arguments, and even suggested good reasons for transfer agreements!

Also, of six states that require TAs with hospitals, two are in the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court. The six states are: Florida, NC, Penn., Wisconsin, Mich. and Ohio, with the last two being part of the Sixth Circuit along with Ky. and Tenn.

The ramifications of the June v. Russo case are many. The Guttmacher Institute, a policy arm of abortion supporters, provided a view to how it could affect the national “targeted regulation of abortion providers.”

It is strange that their chart that delineates which states have Transfer Agreements marks Kentucky’s Law as “permanently enjoined.” Of course, it is NOT. It awaits the decision of the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court.

Blog series on this website presenting various aspects of this topic include the Amici series and the License to Abort series. Use the Google search window at the top to search by words or phrases.

Fourth in the License to Abort Little Ones series

A look back over the multitude of legal briefs that began to be filed in early 2017 for the Transfer Agreements case reveals that Vickie Yates Brown Glisson was first to be named in the suit by EMW (et al) against Kentucky.

Ms. Glisson was appointed by Gov. Bevin in 2015 as Secretary of Kentucky’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services (CHFS). When the suit began, the CHFS did not have a general counsel. Then-AG Beshear did not defend Kentucky’s pro-life laws. Therefore Gov. Bevin called upon his General Counsel Steve Pitt to serve in Beshear’s role.

However, now that our new AG is pro-life, Gov. Beshear believes his CHFS Secretary has the authority to rescind lawsuits begun when Steve Pitt acted as General Counsel.

Kentucky’s CHFS Acting Secretary Eric Friedlander was quoted in a C-J article on Jan. 14:

“By rescinding the improper decision by the previous administration, we are now following the established processes required to reapply for a license," Friedlander said in a statement. "This administration will follow the state laws and statutes related to licensing of these facilities.”

…Friedlander's agency on Tuesday dropped the lawsuit the Bevin administration had filed accusing Planned Parenthood of failing to comply with state law in its previous license application. Lawyers for the Beshear administration and Planned Parenthood signed an agreement to dismiss the case pending in Jefferson Circuit Court, saying there was no failure to comply with the law.

Was the case pending in the Jefferson Circuit Court? A call to the Cincinnati Sixth Circuit Appeals Court this week disclosed the case is pending there. What is going on? KRLA has requested AG Cameron’s help in this matter and we are confident he will clarify or take action to resolve the confusion.

First AG Beshear told Kentuckians he opposed the TA case. He even submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the EMW and PP while serving as Kentucky’s AG! (See blog series). Now, as Governor, he claims control of it? Can this be?

On the AG webpage on the state website, there is information on the AG powers:

The Kentucky Supreme Court has firmly established that the Attorney General’s primary obligation is to the people and their Commonwealth – not any branch of government. In 2016, the Supreme Court recognized the Attorney General’s common-law obligation to protect public rights and interests by ensuring that our government acts legally and constitutionally, in Beshear v. Bevin, 498 S.W.3d 355. The Court wrote that “It is certainly in ‘the interest of all the people’ that there be no unconstitutional or illegal governmental conduct.” The Court analyzed the supremacy of the Attorney General as the chief law officer of the Commonwealth, and found that he has broad authority to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief against state actors, including the Governor, whose actions he believes are illegal or unconstitutional.

Click here to read the rules for licensure of an abortion clinic in Kentucky. This has not been removed from the Ky. Law webpage to date.

On Jan. 31 the C-J reported:

Planned Parenthood now has permission to provide abortions at its clinic in downtown Louisville, making it the second facility in Kentucky to offer the procedure at a time when providers in some states are closing clinics under pressure from anti-abortion laws.

We believe this is a ruse.

If the Appeals Court panel of judges reinstates Kentucky’s TA law, that will either end the matter or the ACLU (et al) will pursue the case to SCOTUS. If the Appeals Court judges agree with the Fifth District Court decision handed down by Judge Stivers, perhaps AG Cameron will appeal to SCOTUS. (See related article on pro-life case now at SCOTUS.)

We are confident that the Rule of Law will prevail.

It has never been the TA Defense’s goal to shut down Kentucky’s abortion clinics, but only to preserve the existing law that protects aborted women.

Third in the License to Abort Little Ones series

There is a little confusion in the Transfer Agreements term. Sometimes it is used in the singular and other times as plural. There are two agreements, one with a hospital and one with a local ambulance service.

It was brought out in the Kentucky Transfer Agreements (TA) trial in September 2017, that the crucial feature of any TA with a hospital is the “protocol for transferring medical records.” This was restated in an Appellant (Ky.) brief last October explaining to the Cincinnati Appellate Court why the TA case is far from being resolved.

Kentucky’s brief was in response to an ACLU brief stating that a new policy issued September 30, 2019, by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare (CMS) eliminates the requirement for Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASC) to have

1. doctors with admitting privileges on staff,
   or
2. a written transfer agreement with a hospital,

in order to participate in the Medicare program.

The CMS states that

1. the enactment of EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) regulations, and
2. the small number of transfers, and
3. the burden that ASCs incur when faced with local hospital competition issues

are good reasons why no TA is needed.

They are banking on ‘911’ calls and city/county EMS to do the job.

This brings up a point: Abortion clinics in Kentucky are not required to be licensed as ASCs. Since they are not ASCs with more stringent hospital standards, the TAs are essential to the current licensure standards. Are we willing to say that Medicaid rules that key in on saving money and the low numbers of potential fatalities should define the new standard?

But, why not require that any Kentucky abortion clinic be licensed as an ASC? Isn’t abortion a surgical procedure? Yes, of course.

There are two types of surgical abortion: aspiration abortion and dilation and evacuation (D&E - dismemberment) abortion. Women up to 14 to 16 weeks pregnant can have an aspiration abortion (except for the baby’s skull which may need to be crushed before aspiration). D&E abortions are performed at 14 to 16 weeks or after.

Gov. Beshear has issued a license for PP to begin doing abortions in March. This is not legal unless PP has a TA which has not yet been publicized.

If they do not have a TA, they will be operating illegally.

So, why does the Guttmacher.org website which favors abortion, claim that the “Transfer Agreement with Hospital” requirement in Kentucky is permanently enjoined and is not in effect?

The LawAtlas.org site, which pulls data from the internet, states that Kentucky Law does require TAs.

Pro-lifers have reason to think positive: Two of the three judges on the panel were appointed by President Trump. At the hearing last August, KRLA staff and friends heard their questions and thought they seemed genuinely impartial and willing to consider the importance of safety for the aborted woman.

If the Appeals Court reverses the District Court decision, as it did for Kentucky’s Ultrasound Law last year, then PP will be required to get TAs, as will EMW, or the case may be appealed to SCOTUS.

Like the Ultrasound Law, the TA Law does not oppose abortion. The former requires that the woman be informed and the latter that she be protected in the event of an emergency.

Second in the License to Abort Little Ones series

On Wednesday, March 4, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Louisiana’s 2014 Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, and La. is excited! We should be, too. This case could affect the outcome of the Kentucky Transfer Agreement (TA) case that currently awaits resolution at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Will the TA panel of judges wait to hear the SCOTUS decision on the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act before handing down its ruling for Kentucky? There is a common sense practice of not investing too much time when it is known that a similar case may affect a lower court ruling.

The Appellate Court does NOT share any information on when an opinion will be issued. SCOTUS may not rule for many months, and the Sixth Circuit Court may wish to get our TA case off their docket soon. No one knows.

The La. case is similar to a Texas case which SCOTUS ruled against in 2016.

The Texas provisions under debate in the case required that abortion clinics be licensed as ambulatory care facilities with all the amenities of a surgical center, and that clinic doctors have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.

"Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution," said the 5-3 decision authored by Justice Stephen Breyer. Read more.

Breyer’s decision was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor. Barak Obama applauded it.

Like the Texas case, the La. law requires the abortion clinic to have formal agreements with local hospitals allowing them to transfer patients if needed.

Pundits have observed that SCOTUS accepted the La. case to review because of its new composition that includes Judges Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Otherwise it would have stood on precedent because of the similarity of the cases.

So, if Judges Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor vote to disallow the La. law, will Chief Justice John Roberts join Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito, assuming they vote to uphold it?

An article on LifeNews.com encourages pro-lifers to be aware of this SCOTUS trial and to actively make known your concern for aborted women’s safety.

First in the License to Abort Little Ones series

Does the Planned Parenthood clinic on 7th Street in Louisville have Transfer Agreements? Will it really begin doing abortions in March?

---

Deborah Yetter, Louisville Courier Journal | Published 5:06 p.m. ET Jan. 31, 2020 | Updated 6:11 p.m. ET Jan. 31, 2020

Planned Parenthood now has permission to provide abortions at its clinic in downtown Louisville, making it the second facility in Kentucky to offer the procedure at a time when providers in some states are closing clinics under pressure from anti-abortion laws.

The decision by the administration of Gov. Andy Beshear was hailed by Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky as a victory for women’s health and reproductive rights, saying the decision allows it to provide “a full range of reproductive health care.”

…Planned Parenthood said it plans to begin offering abortions in March.

Unlike EMW, which operates a storefront clinic and is the site of daily sidewalk protests by people opposed to abortion, Planned Parenthood’s clinic is set back off the road with on-site parking surrounded by a privacy fence.

Read more.

---

Do governors have the right to overrule legislation in the court system that is pending resolution?

The C-J reported in late September 2018 that Judge Stivers (a Fifth District Court judge) ruled in favor of the abortion clinics, and struck down the “state law requiring Kentucky abortion clinics to have written agreements with an ambulance service and hospital for emergencies… ” His ruling was appealed by Gov. Bevin to the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court. THAT IS WHY the article ALSO states:

---

Deborah Yetter, Louisville Courier Journal | Published 4:12 p.m. ET Sept. 28, 2018 | Updated 6:49 p.m. ET Sept. 28, 2018

The revocation of EMW's license would have made Kentucky the only state without a single abortion provider. Stivers had ordered that EMW could remain open while the legal challenge is pending… (Our emphasis)

What has changed? The TA case has NOT been ruled on by the Sixth Circuit Court. The only new document on PACER that we can find is the Amy Cubbage, Ackerson & Yann, PLLC, motion to withdraw as Counsel for EMW WOMEN’S SURGICAL CENTER, P.S.C., et al., filed 1/30/2020.

Do governors have the right to overrule legislation in the court system that is pending a resolution? And if Daniel Cameron decides to appeal that decision, if unfavorable, to SCOTUS, will Gov. Beshear have any right to grant a license to PP?

---

C-J article in 2019 reported on Judge Stiver’s challenge to Gov. Bevin to grant PP a license to abort

Last August the Bevin administration was advised to grant a license to Planned Parenthood, as reported in the C-J.

---

Deborah Yetter and David Harten, Louisville Courier Journal | Published 10:18 p.m. ET Aug. 16, 2019 | Updated 4:33 p.m. ET Aug. 17, 2019

…In a notice to the judge filed Friday, Meredith and lawyer M. Stephen Pitt, Bevin's general counsel, told the judge that the state had denied a license to Planned Parenthood and that he has no authority in the matter.

“Respectfully, this Court has no jurisdiction over the state licensing process," the notice said.

The state's denial comes amid an ongoing dispute over whether Kentucky abortion clinics must have transport and transfer agreements with an ambulance and hospital in the event of a medical emergency, as required by a 1998 state law.

Has Kentucky’s Transfer Agreement law been overturned? When? Does Planned Parenthood now have Transfer Agreements? We are keeping our ear to the ground.

For more background on this controversy, see the blog series on then-AG Beshear's Amicus brief on behalf of the abortion clinics, and the TA page on this site.

Schu Montgomery, Courier-Journal Opinion contributor | Published 9:04 a.m. ET Nov. 19, 2019

On Jan. 25, a 31-year-old Arabic woman hemorrhaged at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Austin, Texas, following her botched abortion. But when an employee phoned 911 for the ambulance, she downplayed the severity of the excessive bleeding. Adding insult to injury, the caller requested no sirens, leaving one to wonder: Was the clinic’s reputation more important than the victim of this bungled procedure? Without a “medical emergency” designation, ambulance personnel could have been delayed by traffic, which could have resulted in the woman’s death.

Unbeknownst to the public, cases such as this are quite common. Abortion simply isn’t the safe procedure its supporters like to say It is. Abortion clinic transfer agreements with local hospitals are necessary to protect women and to save lives.

Lawmakers across the country who have acted on documented proof showing 227 abortion facilities in 32 states between 2008 and 2016 have been responsible for 1,400 health and safety deficiencies, should be commended, not condemned for looking out for the women of this nation!

A quick online check of just about any state of the union will find a pattern of abuse — a snapshot, if you will — showing an industry fighting to keep profits high and standards low. Just a few examples -- Read more.

National Right to Life News | Dave Andrusko | October 4, 2019

The Supreme Court announced this morning that it has agreed to hear Louisiana's Act 620, the 2014 law that requires abortion clinics to have a physician with admitting privileges at a local hospital in case of emergencies.

The justices will likely hear oral arguments this winter with a decision coming in June 2020.

The High Court met this week to decide what cases it will hear this term. So far, it has not announced whether it will consider the component of Indiana's HE 1337 that requires abortionists to provide women with the opportunity to view an ultrasound of their child at least 18 hours prior to performing abortion.

“We look forward to the Supreme Court reviewing Louisiana's 2014 Unsafe Abortion Protection Act,” said Benjamin Clapper, Executive Director for Louisiana Right to Life. “Abortion facilities should not be provided loopholes when it comes to health and safety standards that apply across the board to outpatient surgical facilities.”

Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, told NRL News Today, “The abortion industry says abortion is safe yet they oppose any and all regulations that attempt to protect women seeking an abortion.” Tobias added, “I hope members of the Supreme Court will ask themselves, What is wrong with these abortionists that they can't get admitting privileges at a local hospital?”

Read more.

Update 8-22-19: C-J's Deborah Yetter reports:

[In a motion on Wed., Aug. 21] Planned Parenthood is asking a federal judge to hold Gov. Matt Bevin and top state health officials in contempt of court over what it alleges are repeated violations of court orders regarding its effort to get a license to provide abortions in Louisville…

“It is clear," the motion said, "that the defendants are engaging in self-help by ignoring this court's orders in hopes of a win on appeal in the sixth circuit.”

Wednesday's motion is the second time Planned Parenthood has asked the court to hold the Bevin administration in contempt over its long-running battle to get the license. Read more

It seems obvious that Kentucky would engage in self-help by appealing the case to the Sixth District Court of Appeals after losing it in the lower court. That is standard procedure, so how could it be viewed as ‘contempt’?

---

The C-J reports:

The Bevin administration is once again blocking Planned Parenthood from having a license to operate an abortion clinic at its building in downtown Louisville… Planned Parenthood announced the decision in a release late Friday night…

Read more. Also see this related post.

Chad Meredith (addressing the media), our state’s Chief Deputy General Counsel, argued to retain Transfer Agreements law in Kentucky at the Sixth Circuit Federal Appeals Court on August 8. Background on this case is here.

Many pro-lifers including KRLA staff and members heard the arguments and later participated in a media conference staged by Addia Wuchner, former representative for Ky’s 66th district. Reporters from WDRB-TV, the C-J and others covered the event and LifeNews has reported on it drawing from a story in CourtHouseNews.com.

Listen to the full proceedings from the hearing. As noted by CourtHouseNews, there is no timetable for the decision to be issued. Three judges heard the arguments by Atty. Meredith and attorneys for the EMW Clinic and Planned Parenthood. Two of them, Judges Chad Readler and Joan Larsen are recent appointees of President Trump. Judge Eric Clay was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

Aside: Congratulations to Attorney Meredith who was recently promoted to Solicitor General. Read more.

Sixth and final in the Amici series

When Planned Parenthood (PP) could not get a Transfer Agreement (TA) with any hospital in Louisville, it got one with U of Ky. in Lexington and Clark Memorial Hospital in Indiana. These were considered by the Bevin Administration (BA) too far from PP or in the case of Clark Co., not in Kentucky, which has the duty of oversight for the TA providers. Its jurisdiction does not extend to Indiana.

AG Beshear’s Argument 1 is that a state cannot rely on another state to protect a woman’s 14th amendment right. That was in response to the BA statement during the trial that a woman can get an abortion in Indiana, Tennessee, Ohio, etc., which is already true given that Kentucky currently only has one abortion clinic, the EMW in Louisville.

Thus, AG Beshear’s statements that Kentucky should let Indiana contract with PP in Louisville for a TA, but should not consider other state’s abortion clinics to be suitable for Kentucky women, seem contradictory.

Argument 2A says that “The BA has unduly burdened women seeking to exercise their constitutional rights” and 2B states that TAs “provide no benefit to clinic patients.” We disagree.

Regarding Argument 2A, as stated above, women currently do get abortions in nearby areas over state lines, which shows they are not unduly burdened in their pursuit of an abortion.

As for 2B, we lobbied for TAs way back in the 1990s, and have never reversed our position on this important service for women.

TAs may not be frequently needed, but they are important to have should the need arise. A current story that underscores this fact is here. Another is here.

We urge the judges of the Sixth Circuit Court to uphold Kentucky Law.

Fifth in the Amici series

In the Amicus, Gov. Bevin is accused by our AG of seeking to place in his budget “a provision excluding state funding for any ‘affiliate’ of abortion facilities, which caused [U of L Hospital’s parent company] KentuckyOne* to believe that its state funding would be jeopardized by a transfer agreement (TA) between U of L Hospital and any abortion clinic.” (In business law an affiliate is not part of the company with whom it affiliates. Thus, unless UofL Hospital owned Planned Parenthood or vice versa, there is no formal affiliation that could be stated. By law, an affiliate of PP would be a direct subsidiary.)

The media carried a false story that the Governor’s office had pressured UofL to cancel its TA with Planned Parenthood. During the trial, representatives of KentuckyOne stated categorically that no one in the Bevin administration had pressured them to cancel the TA.

Kentucky’s attorneys brought out that the state is not opposed whatsoever to TAs —which state law requires; it was simply a matter that the existing TAs were not legal documents. How would a contract with a hospital department be legal? (See post 2 of the series.)

An aside

Kentucky law also states that public funds may not go toward paying for abortion services. This statute was on the books as early as 1980. Thus, UofL Hospital does not perform abortions but, needless to say, it would be lawful for it to assist in saving the life of a woman who was damaged by an abortion.

In 2017 the “no public funds for abortion” statute was revised to permit re-ordering of who is eligible for funds, and this year President Trump further adjusted that policy so TAs may be the least of PP’s worries at this time.

The Trump Administration’s new final regulations for the federal Title X family planning program make significant changes to the program and will:

• Block the availability of federal funds to family planning providers that also offer abortion services;
• Prohibit sites that participate in Title X from referring pregnant clients to abortion providers;
• Eliminate current requirements for Title X sites to provide non-directive pregnancy options counseling that includes information about prenatal care/delivery, adoption, and abortion;
• Prioritize providers that offer comprehensive primary health care services over those that specialize in reproductive health services; and
• Encourage participation by “non-traditional” organizations such as those that only offer one method of family planning, such as fertility awareness-based methods.

Read more.

The American Medical Association, AGs of many states, PP, and others have filed suit in federal court to block the new Title X regulations, stating that they violate the Constitution and federal law.

And on it goes.

*In June 2017 the UofL Hospital split from KentuckyOne and currently is managed by UofL’s University Medical Center.

Fourth in the Amici series

AG Beshear argues that he is a constitutional officer whose source of authority is the people who establish the government, and his primary obligation is to the people. Drawing from language in a previous court case, he states the “Attorney General owes his primary duties to the people – not the Governor or General Assembly…”

Although we can’t speak to every possible or actual case, we do know that the citizens of Kentucky voted for the statute in question and most recently for a heavily pro-life legislature, so if AG Beshear’s primary obligation is to us, then he must uphold pro-life laws and not seek to strike them.

After all, in Kentucky, the majority is based on population, not on geography. The population has spoken. The geographic areas with a majority of pro-choice voters are only in some metro areas. (The graphic shows the 2016 Presidential Election with only Jefferson and Fayette counties in blue.)

He also argues in the Amicus that he “has not only the power to bring suit when he believes the public's legal or constitutional interests are under threat, but … even the duty to do so.” (based on a legal case concerning a mining company in 1973)

Because the regulation at issue in this action threatens Kentucky women’s constitutional right to access to abortion, the Attorney General is permitted to file this amicus to protect the constitutional interests of the public.
Under the Kentucky Constitution, Kentucky statute, and common law, the Attorney General is sworn to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and Kentucky and to defend the laws of the Commonwealth, so long as those laws pass constitutional muster.

In addition to protecting the U.S. Constitution, AG Beshear desires to support Judge Stivers’ ruling that the Bevin Administration not only defended a needless regulation with no basis in medical science, he even did so on an emergency basis, and threatened hospitals that participated in transfer agreements.

What exactly did the Bevin administration do?

Third in the Amici series

AG Beshear’s Amicus brief was filed on behalf of Kentucky:

The Commonwealth of Kentucky by and through Andy Beshear, the Attorney General of Kentucky, submits this brief “without the consent of the parties or leave of court” pursuant to FRAP 29(a)(2), and in support of Appellees, EMW Women’s Surgical Center and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky.

Please remember this when you vote in November. When you split your vote between Republican and Democrat, conflicts may erupt that will cost us taxpayers a LOT of money and impede progress for many key issues.

What is FRAP 29(a)(2)? Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure state that amicus briefs may only be filed by the U.S. or its officer or agency or a state without the consent of the parties or permission of the court.

How would “state” be defined in this instance? Would it not make sense that STATE means the entity that is being sued, and PARTIES would be the entities suing the STATE? So, here we have the STATE filing an amicus NOT for the STATE, but for the PARTIES. We call on the judge of the matter to throw out this Amicus.

(A similar but separate Amicus brief has been filed with the support of 20 other states, led by the AG of Nevada. At least it follows the protocol of FRAP 29(a)(2).)

As the KRLA blog posted on March 28, an Amicus brief was filed by 16 states IN SUPPORT of TAs. It TOO was based on FRAP 29(a)(2).

Is your head spinning? Please! Remember Kentucky’s motto: United we stand, divided we fall.