We do not agree with our AG’s Amicus arguments↤ KRLA Forum
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.
CommentsComments close after 3 weeks following the post date.
Comments are closed