These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Supreme Court refuses to review clinic access law; Second Appeals Court upholds statute.
    Journal: Reprod Freedom News; 1995 Jun 30; 4(13):2-3. PubMed ID: 12346292.
    Abstract:
    On June 19, the US Supreme Court refused to review "Woodall v. Reno," a challenge to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) filed in Virginia by an anti-choice individual. FACE prohibits the use of force, threat of force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone providing or obtaining reproductive health services. By denying the petition for "certiorari," the High Court let stand the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decision in February. In that ruling, the midlevel federal court affirmed a lower court's dismissal of two of the eight anti-choice lawsuits challenging FACE, "Woodall v. Reno" and "American Life League v. Reno," which were consolidated by the appeals panel. Although plaintiffs in the first case filed a request for review by the High Court within days of the appellate court ruling, plaintiffs in the latter case waited until May to do so. The Department of Justice, which is defending the federal statute, and CRLP and the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, who are intervening on behalf of women and health care providers, will file their opposition to the review by July 26. The Justices will then decide to hear the case. On June 23, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision to dismiss "Cheffer v. Reno," a facial challenge by Florida anti-choice activists seeking to invalidate FACE. The appeals court had ruled the law did not infringe on First Amendment rights, and the panel rejected the argument that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution by finding that the measure "protects and regulates commercial enterprises." The appeals court accepted an "amicus" brief filed by CRLP and NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund on behalf of the National Abortion Federation, the National Organization of Women, physicians, and women's health clinics, but denied their request to intervene in the case. Seven federal courts in addition to the US Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits, have found FACE to be constitutional; one has not.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]