Alaska judge strikes down requirement that only licensed physicians provide abortions

Abortion-rights advocates commencement a march on respective downtown blocks to protestation nan U.S. Supreme Court ruling’s June 24, 2022, ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)

An Alaska rule prohibiting anyone different than a licensed expert from performing abortions violates nan authorities constitution’s adjacent protection and privateness guarantees, a authorities Superior Court judge ruled connected Wednesday.

There is “no aesculapian reason” why abortions cannot beryllium provided by precocious believe clinicians, aliases APCs, specified arsenic caregiver practitioners and expert assistants, said the ruling issued by Superior Court Judge Josie Garton.

Limiting abortion services to state-licensed physicians violates nan adjacent protection guarantee because different pregnancy-related services whitethorn beryllium provided by precocious clinicians, Garton said successful her ruling. And nan regularisation “imposes a important load connected patients’ basal privateness authorities to make reproductive decisions and entree abortion care,” she said.

Her ruling bars nan authorities from preventing “otherwise qualified aesculapian clinicians” from providing abortions.

The determination came successful a lawsuit filed connected Dec. 12, 2019, by Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky.

The lawsuit targeted nan physician-only provision, which is identified as Alaska Statutes 18.16.010(a)(1). It dates to Alaska’s 1970 rule that legalized abortion. It besides targeted an Alaska Board of Nursing rule, based connected nan ineligible provision, that barred caregiver practitioners from prescribing abortion medication.

In nan decades since that rule was passed, aesculapian exertion and services person changed, pinch much curen provided by precocious practitioners. In its 2019 lawsuit, Planned Parenthood based on that nan regularisation of abortion services to physicians has go obsolete and results successful unfair obstacles successful a authorities facing a shortage of doctors and progressively reliant connected non-physicians specified arsenic caregiver practitioners and expert assistants.

Garton, successful her ruling, agreed pinch that argument.

“When APCs are barred from providing abortion, location are less disposable providers, less appointments, and imaginable for greater delay. Given nan time-sensitivity of accessing abortion attraction and nan measurement nan work is delivered state-wide done 3 wellness centers galore patients must recreation important distances to scope a wellness center,” she said successful her ruling.

Shortly aft nan suit was filed, nan COVID-19 pandemic started, slowing ineligible procedures statewide. In 2021, Garton issued a preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of portion of nan restriction. Her injunction allowed objective providers to supply medicine abortions. After immoderate delays, location was a nonjury proceedings past November successful Anchorage.

The Alaska Department of Law is considering its adjacent steps, said Chief Assistant Attorney General Chris Robinson. He cited a deficiency of accusation astir really galore patients were affected by nan prohibition.

“Although we are still reviewing nan decision, nan court’s ruling contains respective notable findings, including: ‘The number of patients who acquisition important adverse impacts arsenic a consequence of AS 18.16.010(a)(1) is low, apt very low, compared to nan wide number of abortion patients who person attraction astatine Planned Parenthood,’” he said by email. “It besides found: ‘The grounds was not capable for nan tribunal to quantify, moreover roughly, nan number of patients who, arsenic a consequence of AS 18.16.010(a)(1), were delayed successful accessing care, were incapable to get a medicine abortion aliases aspiration abortion owed to gestational property arsenic a consequence of nan expert requirement, had to time off nan state, aliases were incapable to entree attraction astatine all.’”

Given nan findings, it is unclear really nan prohibition “substantially burdens a basal right,” he said. “The statute was enacted to guarantee aesculapian safety, and those types of judgments are much appropriately made by nan Legislative aliases Executive branches of government. The Department will proceed to measure nan court’s determination and return steps it deems due astatine a early date.”