Justices Let Stand Tough Abortion Clinic Rules

The Supreme Court on Monday turned aside a challenge to a 27-page listing of abortion clinic regulations in South Carolina that some doctors complained are so burdensome that they undermine the right of women to obtain the procedure.

Four doctors who perform most of the state’s abortions had challenged the law. After the Supreme Court decision, their lawyers immediately asked a lower federal court to temporarily prevent the rules from taking effect. They argued that it could be months before they meet all the licensing requirements, meaning that women would be without access to abortions until then.

In 1995, South Carolina’s Legislature passed detailed new regulations requiring extra medical tests for patients as well as wider hallways and doorways in clinics that provide early-term abortions. Other rules set forth airflow and temperature standards and the need for alarm systems in bathrooms.

But the four doctors disputed the rules, claiming that they violate the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law and “represent a concerted attempt to chip away at the right to abortion.”

Lawyers for the physicians wrote that “under the guise of promoting maternal health, these regulations actually threaten women’s health by significantly hindering their access to safe, legal abortions.”

South Carolina authorities replied that the rules “look to protect the health of women who seek abortions” and do nothing to prevent women from obtaining legal and safe abortions.

A lower court agreed with the doctors, but the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state last year. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case allows the appellate court ruling to stand.

In other action Monday, the high court agreed to review federal rules boosting competition in electrical service by requiring utilities to give competitors equal access to their transmission lines.

The court said it will hear arguments by nine state power commissions that say the rules issued in 1996 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are too broad. The states are New York, Florida, Idaho, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, Vermont and Wyoming.

The commission found that public utilities were denying or providing inferior transmission services to competitors in violation of a federal law banning such discrimination.

In another case, the justices agreed to clarify some rights of federal and state prisoners, including how much effort is required to notify inmates that their property has been seized. A federal prisoner in Michigan, Larry Dusenberry, who was convicted of drug crimes, said prison officials failed to notify him when his automobile and bank deposits were confiscated as ill-gotten gains while he was in prison.