Richmond Medical Center for Women v. Herring: CRR's Opposition to Petition for Rehearing En Banc

12.16.08


Primary Content

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 because this case does not satisfy the standard for en banc review. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(a). En banc consideration is not necessary here to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions. The decision of the Panel is consistent in all respects with the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court, and the only other circuit court to consider application of Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. 1610 (2007) (“Carhart II”), to a state abortion ban. Further, the Commonwealth has failed to identify any question of exceptional importance raised by the Panel’s application of the principles articulated in Carhart II to the Virginia Ban.