Estimated read time: 5-6 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY — Planned Parenthood of Utah is challenging the Utah Legislature's ban of abortion clinics, which will require all abortions to be performed in hospitals.
The organization said it has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which if granted would stop the new law, HB467, from going into effect on May 3 as is currently scheduled.
Current court records show Planned Parenthood asked to file an "over-length" motion for the preliminary injunction, as well as a supplemental complaint which could add additional claims and argument under the same lawsuit that is already contesting SB174 from the 2020 Utah legislative session, known as the "trigger law," which bans abortions except in limited circumstances.
Sarah Stoesz, interim president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Utah, called HB467 "a disingenuous law that would functionally eliminate abortion care across our state. ... This is a very cruel law."
It bans women from seeking care at clinics that are licensed, and she said there is not a realistic alternative, since over 95% of abortions in Utah happen at clinics.
"Utah hospitals will be asked to take on an influx of patients they are not prepared for nor trained for, in some cases, not willing to handle," Stoesz said in a press conference Monday.
She said if Utahns are able to find a location to get an abortion, they would be paying more and it will create "insurmountable obstacles" to some. Stoesz said the law would eliminate abortion access, which would put "the lives and health of people at risk."
"Politicians have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to further their unpopular agenda, even if it means eliminating fundamental freedoms and threatening the health and well-being of women and families. This abortion ban is dangerous and it is ill-informed, but we are fighting back," she said.
Stoesz said if the ability to provide safe abortion care is blocked by the government, it will have a lasting effect on the health of Utahns.
"We are and we will do everything in our power to keep Utahns safe and to keep politicians out of everybody's health care decisions. We are proud to provide health services to those who need it and we will never back away from doing what's right," Stoesz said.
What happens without an injunction?
Hannah Swanson, an attorney with Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said this "is effectively an abortion ban," which is why the organization is seeking to stop the law from going into effect — specifically parts of the bill that require abortions to happen in hospitals and that remove licensing for clinics, or as she summarized, it "effectively eliminates abortion clinics as a licensure category."
She said if the requested injunction is not granted by May 3, Planned Parenthood will be required to stop providing abortions, and it will be a crime to provide an abortion outside of a hospital.
This is why the organization is seeking an injunction that would allow Planned Parenthood to continue providing abortion until 18 weeks of pregnancy.
Stoesz said Planned Parenthood clinics will remain open regardless of whether the injunction is granted.
"We have every intention of keeping our doors open for the full range of reproductive and sexual health care that people need in Utah, aside from abortion, should we not prevail in this legal effort. Our doors will stay open and our patients will be seen," she said.
She added that the organization is not sure what hospitals will do, and whether they will increase access to abortion if clinics are no longer able to legally provide it. She said hospitals have trained people to provide abortions, but they do not typically do it on a day-to-day basis.
"They haven't been providing abortions. Abortions have been provided in licensed clinics," she said.
Theoretically, Swanson said clinics that provide abortion as safely as hospitals, like Planned Parenthood, could provide abortion if they are licensed as hospitals, but she said that would be a licensing decision.
She said Planned Parenthood has asked for clarifications on being licensed as a hospital from the Department of Health and Human Services, but filed the motion to seek for the courts to intervene before the law's effective date. Swanson said the organization hopes the courts will address the injunction and hear arguments on it before May 3 so the law can potentially be stopped before going into effect.
The broader lawsuit
Swanson said Planned Parenthood's reasons to contest this bill are similar to those addressed in the trigger ban — Planned Parenthood of Utah believes the law violates rights to determine family composition, to bodily integrity, to privacy and to gender equality.
Swanson said the "trigger ban" is still enjoined.
That injunction stopping the ban of all abortions except under special circumstances — like rape, incest or serious risk of death to the mother — is currently up for debate at the Utah Supreme Court.
Swanson said all of the legal briefs have been filed, and the next step is for the Supreme Court to set a date for argument on the appeal. She said this new litigation doesn't change any issues in the appeal; however, Planned Parenthood has asked the court for permission to file a supplemental complaint which adds HB467 into the lawsuit.
The request said HB467 would cause "the same irreparable harm" to Planned Parenthood and its staff as the trigger ban. The legal filing said if the organization filed a separate lawsuit it would clearly be related, and so it would be "a pointless formality."
In the motion, Planned Parenthood said granting this injunction before May 3 would "preserve the status quo currently maintained by the preliminary injunction" against the trigger ban, and address constitutional violations in both laws.
The lawsuit names the state of Utah and various individuals in the government as defendants. The state has not yet responded to this new request for an injunction, and has a few weeks before the deadline to file its legal response.
