Pursuant to this Court’s order dated June 12, 2008, Plaintiffs-Appellees Richmond Medical Center for Women and William G. Fitzhugh, M.D. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby respond to the petition for rehearing en banc filed by Defendants-Appellants Michael N. Herring and Wade A. Kizer (collectively, the “Commonwealth”). As set forth more fully below, the petition should be denied […]
PETITION FOR REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANCVirginia – 2008Virginia Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell, on behalf of Michael N. Herring, in his official capacity as Commonwealth’s Attorney for the City of Richmond, and Wade A. Kizer, in his official capacity as Commonwealth‟s Attorney for Henrico County (collectively “Virginia”), and pursuant Fed. R. App. P. 35 […]
This case involves a facial challenge under the Fourteenth Amendment to a Virginia statute that attempts to criminalize “partial birth abortion,” which the statute terms “partial birth infanticide.” In a summary judgment order the district court declared the statute invalid for several reasons. We affirm because it lacks an exception to protect a woman’s health. […]
We reconsider the constitutionality of a Virginia statute that outlaws what is termed “partial birth infanticide.” Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-71.1 (the Virginia Act or the Act). Reconsideration is required in light of Gonzales v. Carhart (Carhart II), 550 U.S. —-, 127 S.Ct. 1610, 167 L.Ed.2d 480 (2007), which rejected a facial challenge to the federal […]
Physicians and medical clinics challenged constitutionality of Virginia statute criminalizing “partial birth infanticide,” and sought injunctive relief. https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/District-Court-Decision-2-02-04.pdf
Arizona Physicians providing abortions in their private medical practices sued state, claiming that statutory and regulatory scheme covering abortion clinics violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Raner C. Collins, J., granted partial summary judgment to physicians and state, and physicians appealed. https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/9th-cir-op.pdf
Arizona This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States Constitution challenging: (a) Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 36-402, 36-449, 36- 449.01, 36-449.02, 36-449.03 and 36-2301.02, as revised by Arizona House Bill 2706 and Arizona House Bill 2647, and (b) Arizona Regulation Title 9, Chapter 10, Article 15, as amended. https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/fourth-amended-complaint.pdf
This case challenged a “TRAP” law passed by the Arizona Legislature in 1999. The term “TRAP” stands for “targeted regulation of abortion providers,” and it refers to laws that target the medical practices of doctors who provide abortions, and impose on them burdensome requirements which are different and more stringent than the legal requirements imposed […]
Louisiana Choice, Inc. v. Graham: Final Judgment and Order for Dismissal with Prejudice , https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/99-Final-Judgment-and-Order-for-Dismissal-with-Prejudice.pdf
Stipulation of SettlementLouisianaJanuary 13, 2006 https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/88-Stipulation-of-Settlement.pdf