CNA Staff, Apr 20, 2020 / 01:19 pm (CNA).- Eight states that have enacted temporary bans on abortion during the coronavirus pandemic are contending with legal challenges, and judges have prevented many of the temporary bans from coming into effect.
Judges have so far intervened to allow abortions in some form in Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Ohio, Texas, Iowa, Louisiana, and Tennessee, after the leaders of those states attempted to classify elective abortions as non-essential procedures.
In Iowa, abortion advocates had filed a lawsuit against the state’s order, but reached an agreement with the state outside of court before the lawsuit could progress.
In Alaska, a move by state officials to “delay” abortions until June has not been legally challenged; and in Mississippi, the state’s order banning all “elective” medical procedures also has not been challenged. Louisiana’s order to stop elective abortions is facing a lawsuit but has not been blocked.
Many states have suspended medical procedures deemed non-emergency or non-essential in an attempt to stem the spread of the virus among healthcare professionals, and to free up medical resources and hospital capacity.
Texas
In Texas, a three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court ruled April 7 that Texas has the authority to halt elective abortions as non-essential medical procedures during a public health emergency. Governor Greg Abbott had on March 22 issued a statewide order halting abortions, and abortion clinics in the state immediately sued.
Abortion clinics in states like Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, which have not introduced any kinds of ban on abortion, have seen increases in patients traveling from Texas to obtain abortions.
On April 14, a federal appeals court ruled that so-called medication abortions can continue in Texas despite the order. Most surgical abortions are still prohibited in Texas, except for emergencies or pregnancies “nearing the state’s 22-week cutoff,” NPR reports.
Tennessee
On April 17, a federal judge ruled that despite Tennessee’s temporary ban on nonessential medical procedures, the state must allow abortions to continue.
Governor Bill Lee had issued an emergency order April 8 banning abortions for three weeks, with the goal of freeing up protective medical equipment for doctors caring for COVID-19 patients and limiting interactions between patients and abortionists.
The reason the judge gave for allowing abortions, according to the AP, is that the defendants did not show that an appreciative amount of protective medical equipment would be saved by halting abortions in the state.
Alabama
On April 12, a federal judge ruled that the state of Alabama cannot move to limit abortion procedures through measures intended to focus medical resources on fighting coronavirus. Governor Kay Ivey had issued a statewide order March 19 which stopped all medical procedures except for emergencies or those needed to “avoid serious harm from an underlying condition or disease, or necessary as part of a patient’s ongoing and active treatment.”
Granting a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson wrote that “efforts to combat COVID-19 do not outweigh the lasting harm imposed by the denial of an individual’s right to terminate her pregnancy, by an undue burden or increase in risk on patients imposed by a delayed procedure, or by the cloud of unwarranted prosecution against providers.”
Oklahoma
Governor Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma issued an executive order halting non-essential surgeries and minor medical procedures in the state during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Stitt clarified March 27 that the order prohibited elective abortions, except in cases where the mother’s life or health was deemed to be at risk, among the non-essential surgeries that were to be halted. The order also stopped “routine dermatological, ophthalmological, and dental procedures, as well as most scheduled healthcare procedures such as orthopedic surgeries.”
On April 1, Stitt extended the order’s prohibitions until April 30. On March 30, abortion providers in the state challenged the halt to elective abortions in court. On April 7, Judge Charles Goodwin of Oklahoma’s Western District Court put a temporary stay on Stitt’s order, allowing some abortions, including medication abortions, to continue.
The court’s restraining order is in effect until April 20, after which the court can let it expire or address the situation again.
Ohio
On April 6, a court ruled that Ohio cannot stop abortion clinics from operating due to COVID-19.
Ohio had ordered a halt on surgical abortions as “non-essential” medical procedures during the pandemic, before a district court put a temporary restraining order on that policy March 30.
Arkansas
U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker on April 14 granted a temporary restraining order against the state of Arkansas’ order to halt elective abortions.
Iowa
Governor Kim Reynolds issued an order March 30 classifying abortion as an elective procedure and banning them during the pandemic, but the state later acknowledged that the order only suspends “nonessential” surgical abortions that can be delayed without undue risk to the health of the patient, the Des Moines Register reports.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa had filed a lawsuit against the state’s order but voluntarily withdrew its motion for an emergency injunction after the state responded to the lawsuit.
Louisiana
The Louisiana Department of Health on March 21 ordered all medical and surgical procedures be postponed until further notice, with exceptions for emergencies.
Abortion clinics in the state have sued to block the measure.
Mississippi
Governor Tate Reeves issued an executive order April 10 banning all “elective” medical procedures, including abortions, with the order expiring April 27.
Alaska
Governor Mike Dunleavy on March 19 added surgical abortions to a list of procedures that should be delayed until June 15.
The state’s list, updated April 7, includes several other types of surgeries including cancer, cardiac, and children’s procedures, including circumcisions, that could be postponed, Alaska Public Media reported.
[…]
“The Holy See gave no reason for the decision.”
Is it just me, or does this seem a tad high-handed?
Doesn’t the Holy Father owe the Diocese of Arecibo an explanation? Is Bishop Torres a danger to his flock in any way?
And what are his fellow bishops supposed to read into his removal?
For a papacy that claims to be all about the synodality of synodality, taking such an action in a virtual vacuum appears altogether centralized and authoritarian.
It certainly seems that the Church — as, indeed, the world — is at a hugely consequential inflection point.
No, it’s not just you.
To the new disoriented clericalist elites, the Church is their centrally managed corporation, and they all work as regional managers for “the bouncer-in-charge” Pontiff Francis.
See Phil Lawler in Catholic Culture, Mar. 9.Gi
“I think that for quite some time many bishops have been watching with concern what is happening in the Church and we have resisted believing what is happening. Today more than ever we must remember our calling to be prophets” (Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres).
When faithful priests and bishops are persecuted by the Church we know something is terribly amiss. That a bishop seeking to safeguard his seminarians, affirming conscientious refusal of vaxx by member of his fold is censured and removed, while elsewhere Catholics are permitted license by bishops to receive the Eucharist when living in adultery and same sex relationships.
Are we approaching perhaps that final test of our faith? Men like Bishop Torres whatever transpires forge the path for us.
Blessings of peace and ever increasing wisdom.
Man is known by what he says and how he acts. Thank God for Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres and others of his ilk.
Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
Psalm 27:10 For my father and my mother have forsaken me, but the Lord will take me in.
1 Peter 5:8 Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
Philippians 3:13-14 Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
2 Corinthians 12:9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
Romans 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.
Wasn’t Puerto Rico the place that shut down the Mass of the Ages rather precipitously?
“For a papacy that claims to be all about the synodality of synodality, taking such an action in a virtual vacuum appears altogether centralized and authoritarian.”
Curious. Bishops like Bill Morris in Australia were ejected from the episcopacy. Rome has always been about centralization and authoritarianism. The people complaining usually are allies, personal or ideological.
A bishop who refuses to collaborate with fellow bishops on a seminary, who bucks the trend in favor of public health and safety–that seems like more serious reasons than other bishops getting the pink slip.
It depends on whose ox is being gored.
There has to be more to the story than this.
If being a “traditionalist” and not being “collegial” are the reasons Torres was fired, there are quite a few bishops in the United States whose job would be on the line.
I think people who understand Spanish and have access to Puerto Rican media may be able to find out more information.