Ruling Allows Some Medical Exceptions Under Abortion Ban
In a significant ruling, a three-judge panel in Tennessee determined Thursday that doctors who provide emergency abortions to save the life of the mother will not face disciplinary action, such as the revocation of medical licenses, while a lawsuit challenging the state’s abortion ban proceeds. However, the ruling leaves doctors vulnerable to criminal prosecution, which could carry severe penalties, including up to 15 years in prison.
Defining Medical Necessity Exceptions
The panel also clarified what pregnancy-related conditions qualify under the state’s abortion ban, which currently has no exceptions for fetal anomalies or cases of rape or incest. The judges specified that certain medical conditions, including premature rupture of the amniotic sac, fatal fetal diagnoses leading to severe preeclampsia, and potential infections leading to uterine rupture, now fall under the “medical necessity” exemptions.
Previously, Tennessee’s abortion ban, enacted in 2022, only explicitly allowed exceptions for ectopic and molar pregnancies or when a doctor deemed it necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or avert severe and irreversible physical impairment.
Lack of Clarity in the Law
The ruling is seen as a win for reproductive rights advocates who have long argued that Tennessee’s abortion ban is too vague and places medical professionals at undue legal risk. The court acknowledged this concern, noting in the ruling that “there is confusion and lack of consensus within the Tennessee medical community on the circumstances requiring necessary health- and life-saving abortion care.”
However, despite these clarifications, the judges stopped short of blocking the criminal statute within the abortion ban. While doctors may avoid disciplinary measures from the Attorney General’s office or the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners, they could still be charged with a felony.
Ongoing Legal Challenge
The lawsuit, filed by a group of women and doctors, was initially brought to seek clarification on when abortions are legally permissible under Tennessee’s law. One of the plaintiffs, Rebecca Milner, recounted her tragic experience of being forced to leave the state for an abortion after her water broke prematurely at 20 weeks. Despite her dire condition, doctors in Tennessee said they could not provide an abortion under the state’s restrictive laws, leading to a delay in care that exacerbated her infection.
Milner’s story, along with those of other plaintiffs, underscores the real-world consequences of the law’s ambiguity. The Center for Reproductive Rights, representing the plaintiffs, argues that Tennessee’s broad and vague abortion restrictions put doctors in a position where they fear career-ending legal consequences for performing medically necessary abortions.
