Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas Sue New York, California, and Massachusetts in the U.S. Supreme Court Over Abortion Shield Laws
BATON ROUGE, La. — Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill
announced a multistate lawsuit in the United States Supreme Court challenging
the abortion “shield laws” of New York, California, and Massachusetts. Joined
by Alabama and Arkansas, Louisiana claims that the “shield laws” violate the
Constitution and federal law by promoting and facilitating the distribution of
thousands of illegal abortion drugs through the mail and preventing pro-life
states from enforcing their own laws.
After the Dobbs decision returned
the issue of abortion to the states, New York, California, and Massachusetts
swiftly moved to circumvent the Supreme Court and the law of the land—not by simply
codifying abortion in their own territories, but by actively seeking ways to
nullify the sovereign rights of pro-life states. They did this by adopting shield-law
policies that restrict cooperation with out-of-state law enforcement, limit
extradition, prevent the enforcement of certain out-of-state judgments and
subpoenas, and harbor providers who prescribe and mail illegal abortion drugs
into pro-life states—all to assure shield-law state residents that they can
violate pro-life states’ laws with impunity and no fear of negative
repercussions.
And they didn’t even try to hide their motives.
New York Governor Kathy Hochul proudly proclaimed, “They can’t stop us—they
can’t stop our providers, they can’t stop New York, and that’s how we’re
fighting back.”
Shield laws are thus not shields at all; they
are swords disguised as shields and driven into pro-life states.
Louisiana is asking the Supreme Court to hold
that these laws violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the equal-sovereignty
doctrine, the federal common law of public nuisance, and the Dormant Commerce
Clause.
“Louisiana has made its position on
abortion clear through the bipartisan will of the people’s representatives in its
Legislature. Louisiana chooses life. We will not allow activists states,
activist providers, or distributors profiting from killing babies to threaten
Louisiana’s sovereignty, violate Louisiana law, or endanger Louisiana women and
babies,” said Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill.
Due to the
illegal enterprise that these shield laws have created and protected,
Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas have also filed legal action in the Western
District of Louisiana against 30 individuals and organizations who, through a
sweeping, coordinated scheme, have flooded illegal abortion pills into pro-life
states by advertising, prescribing, dispensing, and shipping abortion drugs
directly into Louisiana and other states.
"Alabama's pro-life laws exist to
protect mothers and their children. This is a coordinated scheme by bad actors
from out of state to defy Alabama law and harm people in our state. These
drugs are dangerous for women who take them, and these companies knowingly
break our laws and brag about it in their advertising. If state sovereignty
means anything, it means Alabama cannot be forced to accept the death of unborn
children and the harm it causes to mothers because someone outside our borders
disagrees with our choice to protect life,” said Alabama Attorney
General Steve Marshall.
The states
further claim that the individuals and organizations made false or misleading
representations concerning the safety, effectiveness, legality, risks, and
appropriate use of abortion-inducing drugs, including minimizing potential
complications and the need for in-person medical care. In Louisiana alone, their
actions have resulted in the hospitalization of women and the deaths of
thousands of unborn babies.
“The rule of law matters, and with this
civil action, we are sending a clear signal that our states take our laws
seriously. I have been proud to stand up for the lives of the unborn my entire
time in public service, and I am proud to defend Arkansas’s pro-life laws
through this civil action today. Arkansas’s General Assembly has repeatedly
heeded the call to protect pregnant mothers and their unborn children, and I
will continue to fight to uphold the General Assembly’s duly passed laws
protecting life,” said Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin.
Defendants in the case include: Brandon Nouhavandi; Jessica
Nouhavandi; JBN Operations LLC; Cambridge Reproductive Health Consultants
(d/b/a The Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project); Angel Foster; Susan
Yanow; Maureen Paul; Remy Coeytaux; Margaret Simeone; A Safe Choice Inc.; A
Safe Choice Network Inc.; Remy Coeytaux, MD, PC (d/b/a Choix Reproductive
Health); Optio Women’s Health, Inc.; Abuzz, LLC; Manisha Kumar; Ishani Village
LLC; Christie Pitney; Christie Pitney Nursing and Reproductive Health Inc.
(d/b/a Forward Midwifery, Nursing, and Reproductive Health); Forward Midwifery
PLLC; Robin Tucker; R. Tucker Limited (a/k/a R. Tucker Chartered, a/k/a Metro
Area Advanced Practice Healthcare); Metro Area Modern Reproductive Care, LLC
(d/b/a Roxy Clinic); Charlene Eisenberg Reproductive Health Collaborative, Inc.
(a/k/a CE Repro, a/k/a CE Repro Fund); Pea Conn LLC (d/b/a Southern Woven); Southern
Woven Health PLLC (a/k/a Woven Health Partners); One Plus Four LLC (d/b/a We
Take Care of Us); Robin Hewlett; CSA ASC LLC (d/b/a We Take Care of Us); Timothy
Paik-Nicely; and With Open Arms Center for Reproductive Choices, Inc. (d/b/a
Choices Rising)
The lawsuit
asks the federal court to declare their actions a public nuisance. The states
also seek injunctive relief, damages, civil penalties, statutory damages,
attorneys’ fees, and costs.
** See attached court filings:
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
