ShareThis Page
ACLU seeks to block fetal heartbeat measure in Kentucky |

ACLU seeks to block fetal heartbeat measure in Kentucky

Associated Press
In this July 17, 2017 file photo, escort volunteers line up outside the EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville, Ky. Abortion-rights defenders have expanded their legal fight against Kentucky to try to block the state’s most restrictive abortion measure, which would mostly ban the procedure once a fetal heartbeat is detected. The American Civil Liberties amended a federal lawsuit on Friday, March 15, 2019, to take aim at the so-called fetal heartbeat bill. (AP Photo/Dylan Lovan, File)

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Abortion-rights defenders opened a new legal fight against Kentucky on Friday to try to block one of the country’s most restrictive abortion measures, which would mostly ban the procedure once a fetal heartbeat is detected.

Hours after Kentucky’s Republican-dominated legislature passed the so-called fetal heartbeat bill, the American Civil Liberties Union was back in federal court in Louisville to challenge the measure. The legislation won final passage late Thursday and was sent to the state’s anti-abortion governor, Republican Matt Bevin, who signed it Friday.

Late Friday, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the fetal heartbeat bill.

It was the second straight day the ACLU took aim at new abortion restrictions passed by Kentucky lawmakers.

ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri said Kentucky is part of a broader agenda to push an abortion case to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the court’s 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

GOP-led legislatures in several other states are also considering fetal heartbeat bills amid surging optimism among conservatives that sweeping abortion bans might have a chance of prevailing in the reconfigured U.S. Supreme Court that includes President Donald Trump’s appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

“This onslaught of bans on abortion that fly in the face of Roe v. Wade are designed specifically for the purposes of trying to get the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe,” Amiri said in a phone interview Friday.

The organization has filed four separate lawsuits challenging a series of abortion laws in Kentucky that mostly passed after the GOP took total control of the state legislature in 2017.

It’s the most lawsuits the ACLU has pending against any state over abortion policy, Amiri said.

The most restrictive Kentucky measure would require anyone seeking an abortion to first determine if a fetal heartbeat is detectable. If it is, the abortion would be banned, with narrow exceptions such as when the mother’s life is endangered. A fetal heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks into pregnancy, before many women know they’re pregnant.

Bevin’s office did not immediately comment Friday on the ACLU’s latest legal action.

“I think we sent a strong message to the world that Kentucky is one of the most conservative, pro-life states in the country,” state Senate Majority Floor Leader Damon Thayer said Thursday night.

ACLU attorneys said the heartbeat bill would prohibit 90 percent of abortions in Kentucky. The only abortion clinic in Kentucky, EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville, would have to turn away most patients, Amiri said.

“If the six-week ban takes effect, the consequences will be devastating,” she said.

The ACLU added its legal challenge against the heartbeat bill to a lawsuit it filed Thursday against another Kentucky abortion measure sent to Bevin on Wednesday. That bill would ban abortion for women seeking to end their pregnancies because of the gender, race or disability of the fetus. When the ACLU said it would take the state to court again over that measure, Bevin defiantly tweeted: “Bring it! Kentucky will always fight for life.”

It and the heartbeat bill would take effect immediately upon the governor’s signature.

The ACLU, which brought the lawsuit on behalf of EMW, also asked a federal judge to block the measure passed Wednesday while its lawsuit challenging the bill is considered.

Federal judges struck down two Kentucky abortion laws in recent years, and the state has appealed both rulings.

One of those laws required abortion clinics to have signed agreements with a hospital and ambulance service in case of a medical emergency. Attorneys for the ACLU and others argued Bevin’s administration was using the law to try to force the last abortion clinic to close. The other state law that was struck down required doctors to perform an ultrasound and attempt to describe it and show it to the patient prior to an abortion.

A trial was held late last year in a third lawsuit challenging a Kentucky law aimed at a common second-trimester procedure to end pregnancies. A federal judge has not yet ruled in the case.

Attorneys for the ACLU and other groups challenging the hospital and ambulance transfer agreement law are seeking $1.5 million from the state to cover attorneys’ fees and other costs.

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.