Law & the Courts

Ninth Circuit Allows Trump Administration’s Abortion Referral Restrictions to Take Effect

President Donald Trump shakes hands with Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, Washington, D.C., October 25, 2018. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday in favor of the Trump administration, allowing its revised regulations barring publicly-funded health clinics from referring women to abortion clinics to take effect.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ revised Title X regulation will go into effect pending the outcome of an appeal of three lower court decisions blocking the rule change.

“To find that the Final Rule’s enactment was arbitrary and capricious, the district courts generally ignored HHS’s explanations, reasoning, and predictions whenever they disagreed with the policy conclusions that flowed therefrom,” the judges wrote in a 25-page opinion.

“Title X is a limited grant program focused on providing pre-pregnancy family planning services — it does not fund medical care for pregnant women,” the opinion adds. “The Final Rule can reasonably be viewed as a choice to subsidize certain medical services and not others.”

The rule change, which prohibits clinics that receive federal funds under Title X from discussing abortion with patients and from referring them to abortion clinics, was set to take effect in May until a federal judge in Oregon blocked its implementation.

U.S. District Judge Michael McShane called the restriction a “ham-fisted approach to public health policy” and said that the so-called “gag rule” infringes on doctors’ ability to provide adequate health care and would “irreparably harm” low-income women, who rely on publicly-funded clinics.

In the decision handed down Thursday, the three-judge panel reversed McShane’s logic, arguing that the public interest would be “irreparably harmed” if the nationwide injunction blocking the rule’s implementation were to be maintained in perpetuity.

“Because HHS and the public interest would be irreparably harmed absent a stay, harms to Plaintiffs from a stay will be comparatively minor, and HHS is likely to prevail in its challenge of the preliminary injunction orders before a merits panel of this court (which is set to hear the cases on an expedited basis), we conclude that a stay of the district courts’ preliminary injunction orders pending appeal is proper,” the opinion states.

Most Popular


What Do Republican Voters Want?

The latest entry in the post-Trump conservatism sweepstakes was Marco Rubio’s speech at the Catholic University of America in early November. The Florida senator made the case for a “common-good capitalism” that looks on markets in the light of Catholic social thought. “We must remember that our nation ... Read More

The Houellebecqian Moment

We are living in the imagination of Michel Houellebecq. The bête noire of French literature has spent decades deploring the erosion of Western mores that he believes resulted from the sexual revolution of the 1960s. His last novel, Submission, revolved around the election of a theocratic Muslim to the French ... Read More

‘Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself’

It was just one more segment to fill out the hour, and thereby fill the long 24 hours of Saturday’s cable news on November 2. Or so it seemed. Navy SEAL Mike Ritland was on the Fox News program Watters World to talk to Jesse Watters about trained German shepherds like the one used in the raid that found ... Read More
White House

Impeachment Woes and DACA Throes

This excerpt is from episode 176 of The Editors. Charlie: Yesterday was the day on which the rain stopped and the sun hid behind the clouds and the eyes of the nation turned in unison toward Capitol Hill for the first day of public hearings in the impeachment of Donald Trump. The results of that first day were ... Read More