Modeled after a Texas law that was signed last summer, HB 388 requires abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic where they perform abortions, imposes a forced 24-hour waiting period on surgical abortions, and reduces the number of abortions a doctor must perform in a given year to be considered an abortion provider.
An unusual suggestion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit could have significant implications for trials over admitting privileges requirements in Alabama and Wisconsin—it could be the difference between one court upholding the requirement and the other striking it.
The state’s health board held a public meeting addressing the status of the review process Thursday, a process that is expected to take months to complete and possibly years to implement.
A Dallas hospital tried to revoke two doctors’ admitting privileges because they provide legal abortion care, but the two parties have now settled out of court.
There isn’t a looming reproductive health-care crisis in the South. It has already arrived.
A federal court will hear evidence and arguments on the constitutionality of an anti-choice restriction that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Without any debate, the Louisiana House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday that would impose regulations aimed at severely limiting access to abortion. It is expected to be signed by Gov. Bobby Jindal.
While the Virginia Board of Health reviews policies that instituted “unprecedented construction requirements” on abortion clinics in the state, the regulations will be suspended.
There’s only one remaining abortion clinic in Missouri—a Planned Parenthood facility in St. Louis—and anti-choice lawmakers are hell-bent on closing it, introducing nearly 40 anti-choice bills over the past two years.
The ruling limits what evidence the reproductive health-care provider could present in its lawsuit challenging the state’s telemedicine abortion ban.