Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsTuesday, August 28, 2007 4:10 PM CDT
Comments Comments (34) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Planned Parenthood wins temporary block of new abortion law
By David Twiddy
Associated Press
Advertisement

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A federal judge temporarily blocked a new Missouri abortion law Monday after Planned Parenthood said the law would harm women by dramatically reducing the clinics available to provide the procedure.

The law, which was scheduled to take effect on Tuesday, would put more abortion clinics under state supervision by categorizing them as outpatient surgery centers, requiring them to meet specific state building, staffing and health standards. The law would apply to any facility that performs more than five first-trimester abortions a month, or any second- or third-trimester abortions.

Planned Parenthood argued the organization would have to halt abortions at its Columbia and Kansas City offices — either permanently or while expensive and ``medically unnecessary'' renovations were made.

U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith granted a temporary injunction, saying he will hold a Sept. 10 hearing to determine whether to make the injunction permanent.

In his order, Smith warned both sides from reading too much into his ruling, saying ``the state has a legitimate interest in regulating facilities that perform surgery, even if the facility in question performs surgical abortions.

``The court also believes the state may differentiate between facilities that do not primarily perform surgery based on the types of surgery they provide,'' he wrote.

But he said it was confusing how the state would apply the law to the Kansas City clinic, which performs only medication-induced abortions, not surgical ones.

Defense attorneys said that the facility should be outfitted for surgery in case something goes wrong with the medication. But Smith was unconvinced.

``Of all the establishments that dispense medication (e.g. doctor's offices, pharmacies), why is it only those that dispense medication for the purpose of inducing an abortion that must be prepared to perform surgery?'' Smith asked.

He said the law should probably apply to the Columbia clinic and noted that Planned Parenthood and the department were willing to cooperate. But he said there was still disagreement over what level of regulations the clinic would have to follow, and more discussion was needed on that point.

Peter Brownlie, executive director of the Planned Parenthood branch, said he was ``very pleased'' with the ruling.

``The state has contended that the law is meant to protect the safety of women,'' he said. ``It's pretty clear that the judge is at best dubious of that plan.''

Jane Drummond, director of the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, said the judge's order could put the health of women at risk.

"We are concerned that blocking this law will endanger the health and safety of women," Drummond said in a statement. But, she added, "We are encouraged that the judge has set the preliminary injunction hearing so quickly so that we have a full opportunity to present our evidence."

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 34 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

BabyMoma wrote on Sep 1, 2007 11:30 PM:

" What I do not understand is how babies can be aborted at 23, 24 weeks, but if a mother who wants her baby has a child that premature they hook them up to life support, put them in an incubator and do everything to keep them alive. It all comes down to being "wanted" I suppose. The luck of the draw if your are born at 24 weeks in a hospital with a staff working to save you, or in a cold sterile room where it is ok to dump you in the trash. Sex could result in pregnancy folks! How about considering what could occur before you do it, so some poor child does not have to give their life for your decison? "

Alphonse wrote on Aug 30, 2007 9:32 AM:

" to wife: Clearly I don't know anything about your family, I was responding to your husband to make a point: the anti-choice movement is about control. It suggests that our govenment should decide what is best for a woman's body. Believe me, any woman who decides to have an abortion does not do it lightly. She realizes that the process has been set in motion for her to one day create life, and deciding to stop that process is difficult. But it can also be the best choice for her. It's just not ours to make. It's also not her boyfriend/husband's choice to make, because even though they are both responsible, it is only her body and health that are affected. It's wonderful when two people want to have a baby, and they have a planned parenthood, and congratulations on yours. But realistically, that's not always the case. There are so many factors that go into a woman's decision to have her pregnancy or not that really aren't our business. It's a hard decision, but we should respect women enough to let them make it for themselves. "

to: abortionists are fools... wrote on Aug 29, 2007 7:17 PM:

" I had an abortion 6 years ago and I have NEVER regretted it. I was 17 and wanted to go to college. And I was being responsible...I was on the pill. However I got sick and when I had to take antibiotics...my doctor failed to inform me that I needed to use back up because the medicine would lessen the effect of the pill. Not my fault. And if I had to do it all over, I'd do it again. I'm now married and I dont have a child an a lousy ex to deal with...I went to college and have a great job now...I wouldnt be where I am now if I would have had that baby... "

wife's resp part 2 wrote on Aug 29, 2007 6:38 PM:

" Three weeks later, the ultrasound showed arms and legs. All organs are developed by 10-11 weeks. There is no argument, that a pregnancy, is not simply a medical condition. It is the creation of a new life. My husband wants to preserve the rights of that child. If a woman can't handle the responsibilities of motherhood, she should not have sex as others have stated. If she does, have sex which results in a CHILD, she should respect that CHILD enough to give it a life, even if it's with other parents. Too often abortion is used as a measure of convenience and birth control. The choice should be made BEFORE the child is created, NOT AFTER!!!! Please refrain from insulting my husband in the future - because you will not find a more respectful man!!!!!!!!!!!!! And for those that argue that pregnancy is nine months of not much fun, to just give a child up, believe me I know. I'm just starting it all over for the second time. But that's the choice I made when I decided to indulge in sex without protection. "

Wife's resp to Alphonse wrote on Aug 29, 2007 6:37 PM:

" I am the wife of the man you are accusing of "thinking that he controls my body". Let me tell you that YOU COULDN'T BE MORE WRONG!!!! My husband is very respectful of EVERYTHING about me. You have NO RIGHT at all to make judgments about a person's character over a few comments. My husband and I respect ALL life including those, like the child I am carrying, that can't speak for themselves. He understands that a child is the result and RESPONSIBILITY of more than one person. The mother has the right to destroy life, but it took two people to create that life. How do I as a woman have the right to rob the father the right to the joy (and heartbreak) that a child can bring?! I don't. ( just ask the man who's ex had an abortion behind his back how he feels about not having that child) No woman does or should. Life was created. It is a life. We had an ultrasound at 7 weeks and there was a beating heart, which you need for LIFE. "

To: J- wrote on Aug 29, 2007 1:34 PM:

" I absolutely agree, it boils down to the right to CHOOSE. However, if a woman CHOOSES to have sex, she should accept the concequences of the decision she CHOSE to make in the first place. Pregnancy is preventable (with the exception of rape of course). Some people view sex as just another outlet to relieve boredom. There is not enough thought placed into the concequence of ANY actions lately. Our whole society has the attitude of "lets do what we want now and let the chips fall where they may". After all, what's the big deal. "

To: Abortionists are fools wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:53 AM:

" No, not ALL women. Believe it or not, some have abortions because it is simply the right decision, and go on just fine with the rest of their lives. "

Gov't Opressed Mule wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:43 AM:

" I LOVE how Many of you fight for the woman's right to choose, HOWEVER Bar owners have no choice in the smoking ban. I LOVE the hypocrisy of this country: Gay senators condemning gay rights, pro-choice crowds fighting to revoke choice, GOD I LOVE THIS COUNTRY! "

Alphonse, once more for good measure wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:36 AM:

" to: Abortionist are fools; you're suggesting that you know how a woman will feel better than she does herself, that your decision is in her emotional best interest and that she is incapable of determining what is best for her. That smacks of a vile patriarchic mindset. A woman's emotional response to the decisions she makes are for her to own. How important you must think you are if you assume to know what's best for every woman in the world. "

I agree w/ abortionists are fools wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:33 AM:

" My ex had an abortion, behind my back (told me miscarriage). After several years she had MANY health problems, all relating back to her abortion. It was because of these problems I finally found out the truth. But she had massive depression, polysystic (spelling?) ovarian disorder, and several more. Abortions are not the "safe" alternative they are made out to be. You WILL have side effects for years to come. Please think people, not before you have an abortion, but think BEFORE YOU HAVE SEX. Ask yourself "If this act results in a child, can I take care of him/her?" "

Alphonse part 2 wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:31 AM:

" To: Nice try Alphonse; I'm not trying to say that you don't love your wife and daughter, but you do seem to think that you should control their bodies, and that the government should control the bodies (uteruses) of all women. If someone ends a women's pregnancy without her consent, as you originally brought up, that is a violation of her right to choose what to do with her body. That what this is all about, a woman's right to privately determine what she does with her own body. To: Re:Alphonse; Read above. If a man causes his girlfriend to miscarry without her consent, that should be a crime because she should have the power to control her own body. To: Dear Alphonse; You're just speculating. I of course don't know what the particulars are behind every woman who has ever chosen an abortion, but neither do you. I argue that it doesn't matter. A woman's choice to have an abortion shouldn't come from either you or me. Just her. "

Alphonse wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:31 AM:

" To: my four rebuttals Let's do this one at a time. To: My Dear Alphonse; Yes, Roe V. Wade was about making abortions safe. If abortion is illegal, then rich women who can buy a good doctor are safe, whereas poor women who lack that luxury turn to dangerous procedures that can harm or kill them. Abortion is not an option that a woman chooses lightly and whether it is legal or not, many women are going to continue to have them. The only realistic way to reduce abortions in this country is to have a sensible sex education program available to all American teenagers and to provide available contraception. And the thing about these facilities in particular is that the law which was recently blocked would have required facilities that did not perform surgical abortions to be bound by the same codes that apply to surgical centers; which smells like a backdoor attempt to hassle abortion clinics. And no, I don't want you to have the right to murder your teenage kids. You're being silly. "

TO; Just wrote on Aug 29, 2007 10:30 AM:

" If they (the poor) or ANYONE doesn't want a child, maybe they shouldn't have sex. Getting pregnant ONLY comes from sex. It's like playing russian roulette, then getting mad when the gun goes off. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY-you have sex and get pregnant, you have a kid. It's that simple. You don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex (or have solo sex as it's safe :). Why kill someone because you don't want to be "burden" for 9 mos? Should have thought of that before you got naked. "

Abortionists are fools wrote on Aug 29, 2007 9:47 AM:

" Healthy and safe is how the woman is after her abortion? YEah right, on all accounts. She is no longer healthy because of the traumatic emotions a woman WILL go through with having an abortion. She no longer feels safe because she knows what they did to her baby. She WILL regret it. "

just wrote on Aug 29, 2007 7:47 AM:

" another attempt to keep the poor where they are. making abortions harder and harder for people with low income to have them... now they'll have to move the clinic further away and make it that much more difficult for a woman to have this option... unfortunately, we are going to hear the christian side of view that sounds like they are coming out of the middle ages: "that's murder"... no, what is murder is a young single mother trying to provide for an unplanned child.... either you judge because she makes the choice to have an abortion or you judge because she cannot be the best mother....... all you do is judge "

J- wrote on Aug 28, 2007 7:45 PM:

" The difference between hurting the mother and therefore hurting the fetus and abortion is that in an abortion the MOTHER determines whether or not she completes the pregnancy. If someone ELSE injures her or kills her, than that decision was taken away from her. It all boils down to the freedom to CHOOSE. I want to be able to decide what happens to my own body. Period. "

To Alphonse wrote on Aug 28, 2007 7:41 PM:

" Don't let these people get you down. You are entitled to your own opinion just like every woman has the right to say what happens to her own body. I don't want kids; I will not bear children, and NO ONE is going to tell me otherwise. And before the Christian coalition comes on here and tells me NOT to engage in actions that can produce children, I will tell you that I am married, so you honestly have no reason to tell me NOT to engage in those actions. Cheers to you Alphonse, for being a voice of reason in this chorus of insanity. "

Dear Alphonse wrote on Aug 28, 2007 7:05 PM:

" You state the laws make abortions more difficult for women who need them. I'd like to know if you can tell me how many abortions that are performed are actually needed? I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience in order to avoid responsibility. "

Re:Alphonse wrote on Aug 28, 2007 6:07 PM:

" So what happens if a husband/boyfriend gives his wife a chemical to cause her to miscarry? Actually, I saw this type of scenario on a television show, and I believe that the husband was charged with first degree murder for the loss of the unborn child. "

Nice try Alphonse wrote on Aug 28, 2007 5:36 PM:

" Nice try trying to seperate the two but the fact of the matter is the intent of murder is to end a life. The intent of abortion is to end the pregnancy, which is the carrying of a fetus that has a heartbeat, which is a life. Try to spin it however you want though. It's too bad you have to resort to judging me because of what I believe. My wife and daughter can atest to how I value women. "

Alphonse wrote on Aug 28, 2007 4:47 PM:

" No, not the same. Legal and safe abortion ends the pregnancy and leaves the mother healthy and alive. When a pregnant woman is murdered, the pregnancy ends and so does the mother's life. I'd say that those two situations are very different. The fact that you equate them like that reveals your disregard for the value of women as autonomous beings capable of making their own choices regarding their bodies. "

My Dear Alphonse, wrote on Aug 28, 2007 4:46 PM:

" Wouln't it be dangerous to allow clinics with unsanitary conditions to continue to operate? Isn't that what Roe V Wade was all about, making abortion safe. I must admit my ignorance though, I have read and read the constitution but I don't see where anyone has a right to murder and unborn child. You can't use the right to privacy because if you follow that argument to it's logical conclusion then I have the right to murder my 12 and 15 year olds as long as I do it in the privacy of my own home. I do see where the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit to happiness are protected in the "DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE." They are unalienable rights. They are not granted by human power but by our creator. Some how most of you can't find the second ammendment that protects the right to bear arms. "

Duh wrote on Aug 28, 2007 4:25 PM:

" PP does not receive government funding for abortion-related services. The overwhelming majority of services provided by PP are family planning (i.e. birth control), cancer screening (i.e. breast exams and pap tests), testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy testing. PP does meet regulations for a non-surgical health care facility. Medically induce abortion is not a surgical procedure. Looks to me like this legislation is trying to be sneaky because they can't shut down PP any other way. "

To Alphonse wrote on Aug 28, 2007 3:41 PM:

" It doesn't matter if only a few states recognize a fetus as a murder victim. The intent and results of murders and abortions are the same no matter how you look it at law or not - the ending of a life. "

MRS. wrote on Aug 28, 2007 3:12 PM:

" I'll tell you what Oy Vey!, you get the state to change their policies on adoption and I would gladly take in more kids and I don't mean just health white babies. I had foster children and I believe I could take a child/children and make a difference in their lives but because of 1.The state says my and my husband's health prevent me from getting more children and 2. They wouldn't let me have any children because I would work at not letting a child go back to abusive parents. That is a nono, foster parents aren't suppose to do things like that. The fact is PP is complaining about heath standards. That is what we are talking about and I would think as "concerned" for these women as they say they are I would think they would welcome strict health standards wouldn't you? "

??? wrote on Aug 28, 2007 2:55 PM:

" ok, I agree their are children who need good homes & it is true some people shouldn't have children. But I blame the adoption laws (state/fed laws)who take away children when a good family is having a bad time. Yes, some children need to be taken away while other familes need help. And while we are on the subject why don't we teach or force some of these people to use birth control or let them get fixed b/c God know they won't keep it in their pants or keep their legs together. Abortion is murder, bottom line. I do not agree with it but I don't force the issue with people b/c we each have to live our own lives & deal with the consequences we have made. And before you ask, I am 32 yrs old have three children with the same man...my husband of 14 yrs. We both work & we have never had the state involved with our lives b/c we love our children & take care of them financially, emotionally and physically. Fetus has a heartbeat folks.....so it is ALIVE & a human being. Remember that. "

Wow wrote on Aug 28, 2007 2:13 PM:

" What is up with all the lunatics today posting comments? The Rally article is infested with Liberal swine. I thought our area was Republican. I sure am convinced! "

Oy Vey! wrote on Aug 28, 2007 1:29 PM:

" I find it so hypocritical to all those anti-abortionists so worried about the unborn! HMMMMMMMMMMM... Let's focus on all of the poor babies/children currently ON THIS EARTH who have NO FOOD, SHELTER and most importantly LOVING PARENTAL FIGURES to raise them before we concern ourselves with the unborn. Why don't you people adopt these poor souls and raise them to be something rather then worry about those not even born yet!!!! Your priorities are complete a@# backwards!!! "

get real wrote on Aug 28, 2007 1:20 PM:

" all of you know the new regulations weren't about updating health codes and standards etc etc... the only goal was to shut them down regardless of how many codes they met. "

to MRS. wrote on Aug 28, 2007 1:19 PM:

" Abortion debate aside, this PP facility performs medical/chemical abortions not surgical ones. The court is right. No other facility that dispenses medicine is required to be prepared to perform surgery. If that were the case, Walgreens would be in for a lot of costly renovations. And you know, this wouldn't even be an issue if the fundies stopped opposing birth control and sex ed... "

Alphonse wrote on Aug 28, 2007 1:11 PM:

" Planned Parenthood is a non profit, MRS. They don't have a problem with updating their facilities, but to shut down several of them for renovation would be bad for women's health. It looks like they're just going to figure out a way to update the clinics while not simultaneously denying abortions to all women in these cities. And to What?, a fetus can only be legally recognized as a muder victim in a few states, and those instances of legislation have been passed in a backdoor manner in order to provide legal basis for making abortions more difficult for women who need them. It's all part of the same agenda that strives to remove bodily authority from women. "

What? wrote on Aug 28, 2007 12:17 PM:

" They would have to stop abortions in order to update their facilities? How could anyone in their right mind stop someone from killing babies? PP is the biggest racket. They don't care about anyone's health or safety, certainly not the babies' they are killing. Why is it someone who kills a pregnant woman is charged for killing the baby but yet abortion remains to be legal? "

Outraged! wrote on Aug 28, 2007 11:25 AM:

" I can't believe that some narrow-minded legislators would try to infringe upon a woman's god-given right to kill her baby by making the abortion center comply with state health regulations! "

MRS. wrote on Aug 28, 2007 11:24 AM:

" What, PP doesn't think the abortion clinics should not have to meet health standards? Atr they really concerned for th women or are they concerned for their bottom line? Don't even try to tell me PP doesn't get money for this. "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Top of Page | Home | News | Sports | Free Time | Life | Money | Nation/World | Opinion | Blogs/Columns | Archives | Site Map | RSS
Weather | Calendar | Obituaries | Classifieds | Jobs | Autos | Homes | Rentals | Coupons
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2009, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy