Amicus Curiae Brief — Stephen Russo, Interim Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Petitioner v. June Medical Services L.L.C., et al.
Supreme Court briefJun 24, 2019
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
No. 18-1460 (Vide 18-1323)
In the Supreme Court of the United States
DR. REBEKAH GEE, in her official capacity as Secretary of
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals,
Cross-Petitioner,
v.
JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L.L.C., on behalf of its patients,
physicians, and staff, d/b/a HOPE MEDICAL GROUP FOR
WOMEN; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF AMERICANS UNITED
FOR LIFE IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-PETITIONER
CATHERINE GLENN FOSTER
RACHEL N. MORRISON
Counsel of Record
NATALIE M. HEJRAN
AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE
1150 Connecticut Ave NW
Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20036
Rachel.Morrison@aul.org
(202) 741-4902
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... ii
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................ 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................... 2
ARGUMENT ............................................................... 3
Plaintiffs do not have a “close” relationship
with their patients and should not have
third-party standing. ............................................ 3
A. Louisiana abortion clinics—including
Plaintiff June Medical Services—have
a long history of serious health and
safety violations. ............................................ 5
B. Louisiana abortion doctors have a long
history of professional disciplinary
actions and substandard medical care. ...... 24
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 31
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Page(s)
Choice Inc. v. Greenstein,
691 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 2012) ............................... 4
June Medical Services v. Gee,
No. 16-444 (M.D. La. filed July 1, 2016) ............. 6
June Medical Services v. Gee,
No. 17-404 (M.D. La. filed June 27, 2017) .......... 6
June Medical Services v. Gee,
No. 18-1323 (U.S. petition for cert. filed Apr.
17, 2019) ............................................................... 6
Kowalski v. Tesmer,
543 U.S. 125 (2004).............................................. 3
Okpalobi v. Foster,
244 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2001) ................... 4, 25, 26
Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973).............................................. 1
Singleton v. Wulff,
428 U.S. 106 (1976).......................................... 3, 5
United States v. Clinical Leasing Service, Inc., 982
F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1992) .................................... 17
iii
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt,
136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016).................................... 3, 18
Statutes
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.12 ................................ 4
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 44:1 et seq. ................................. 5
Other Authorities
Ams. United for Life, DEFENDING LIFE (2018 ed.) ... 1
Ams. United for Life, UNSAFE: AMERICA’S ABORTION
INDUSTRY ENDANGERS WOMEN (2018 ed.),
https://aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/AULUnsafe-2018-Final-Proof.pdf ............................... 1
Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., State
Operations Manual, Appendix Q—Core
Guidelines for Determining Immediate
Jeopardy
(Mar.
6,
2019),
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-andGuidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/so
m107ap_q_immedjeopardy.pdf ........................... 6
Declaration of Roneal Martin, Gee v. Bossier
City Medical Suite, No. 18-00369 (E.D. Tex.
July 3, 2018) ....................................................... 18
Fed. R. Evid. 201 ..................................................... 24
In the Matter of: A. James Whitmore, III, No. 00A-021 (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Jan. 22, 2002) .... 27
iv
In the Matter of: A. James Whitmore, No. 92-A001 (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs May 21, 1992) ....... 26
In the Matter of: Adrian Joseph Coleman: No.
08-I-775 (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Mar. 15,
2010) ................................................................... 25
In the Matter of: Ifeanyi Charles Okpalobi, No.
10-I-033 (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs May 9, 2012)
............................................................................ 26
In the Matter of: Ifeanyi Okpalobi, No. 93-I-051X (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Mar. 8, 1999) ...... 25, 26
In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 08-I774 (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Mar. 16, 2009) ....... 29
In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 13-I014 (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Oct. 17, 2014) ........ 29
In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 15-A009 (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Feb. 15, 2016)........ 29
In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 15-A009 (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs June 20, 2017)....... 30
In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 19-I144 (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Feb. 26, 2019)........ 30
In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 2019A-011 (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Apr. 15, 2019) .... 30
v
In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 2019A-11 (La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs June 10, 2019) ..... 30
In the Matter of: Victor Brown, No. 01-I-037 (La.
Bd. Med. Exam’rs Aug. 15, 2005)...................... 29
In the Matter of: Victor Brown, No. 06-A-021
(La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Sept. 17, 2007) ............. 29
In the Matter of: Victor Brown, No. 89-A-035
(La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Dec. 8, 1989)................. 28
In the Matter of: Victor Brown, No. 99-I-035 (La.
Bd. Med. Exam’rs Mar. 24, 2000) ..................... 28
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Bossier City Medical Suite (Aug. 27,
2007) ................................................................... 20
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Bossier City Medical Suite (Feb. 1, 2017)
...................................................................... 19, 20
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Bossier City Medical Suite (Jan. 20,
2004) ............................................................. 19, 20
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Bossier City Medical Suite (July 2, 2009)
............................................................................ 19
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Causeway Medical Clinic (Jan. 27, 2011) .. 21,
22, 23
vi
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Causeway Medical Clinic (July 2, 2009)
............................................................... 21, 22, 23
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Causeway Medical Clinic (May 15, 2012)
...................................................................... 21, 22
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Causeway Medical Clinic (May 28, 2014) ... 21
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Causeway Medical Clinic (May 30, 2013) ... 24
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Causeway Medical Clinic (Nov. 30, 2015)
................................................................ 21, 22, 23
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge (Apr. 1,
2014) ................................................................... 14
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge (Dec. 7,
2009) ................................................. 11, 12, 13, 14
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge (Feb. 3,
2011) ............................................................. 11, 14
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge (Jan. 25,
2017) ............................................................. 12, 14
vii
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge (Jan. 9,
2013) ................................................................... 13
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge (July 11,
2018) ................................................................... 14
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge (July 13,
2018) ............................................................. 13, 14
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge (June 20,
2017) ................................................................... 14
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge (Mar. 29,
2019) ....................................................... 11, 12, 13
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge (May 27,
2004) ................................................................... 13
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge (Oct. 9, 2007)
............................................................................ 11
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Hope Medical Group for Women (Aug. 13,
2010) ........................................................... 7, 9, 10
viii
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Hope Medical Group for Women (Aug. 16,
2018) ................................................................... 10
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Hope Medical Group for Women (Aug. 30,
2011) ............................................................... 8, 10
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Hope Medical Group for Women (July 25,
2012) ........................................................... 7, 8, 10
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Hope Medical Group for Women (June 7,
2017) ................................................................... 10
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Hope Medical Group for Women (May 27,
2011) ............................................................... 8, 10
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Hope Medical Group for Women (Oct. 4,
2006) ..................................................................... 9
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Hope Medical Group for Women (Sept.
19, 2005) ............................................................... 9
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Hope Medical Group for Women (Sept. 3,
2009) ..................................................................... 9
ix
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Women’s Health Care Center (Apr. 8,
2004) ................................................................... 17
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Women’s Health Care Center (Aug. 5,
2004) ............................................................. 15, 16
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Women’s Health Care Center (June 19,
2018) ............................................................. 15, 16
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Women’s Health Care Center (Nov. 14,
2012) ................................................................... 16
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Women’s Health Care Center (Nov. 7,
2013) ............................................................. 15, 17
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Women’s Health Care Center (Oct. 19,
2010) ............................................................. 16, 17
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Women’s Health Care Center (Sept. 12,
2016) ................................................................... 17
La. Dep’t of Health, Statement of Deficiencies
for Women’s Health Care Center (Sept. 2,
2015) ....................................................... 15, 16, 17
x
Testimony of Leroy Brinkley, In re Cnty. Investigating
Grand Jury XXIII, No. 000-9901-2010, at 9 (First
Jud. Dist. of Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. Nov. 4, 2010)...... 18
1
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1
Amicus Americans United for Life (AUL) is the
first and most active pro-life non-profit advocacy
organization
dedicated
to
advocating
for
comprehensive legal protections for human life from
conception to natural death. Founded in 1971, before
this Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
(1973), AUL has nearly 50 years of experience relating
to abortion jurisprudence. AUL attorneys are highlyregarded experts on the Constitution and legal issues
touching on abortion and are often consulted on
various bills, amendments, and ongoing litigation
across the country. AUL has created comprehensive
model legislation and works extensively with state
legislators to enact constitutional pro-life laws,
including model bills aimed at protecting the health
and safety of women who choose abortion. SeeAUL,
DEFENDING LIFE (2018 ed.) (state policy guide
providing model bills that protect women’s health).
AUL has also documented more than 1,400 health and
safety deficiencies and violations of state regulations
at 227 abortion clinics in 32 states between 2008 and
2016. See AUL, UNSAFE: AMERICA’S ABORTION
INDUSTRY
ENDANGERS
WOMEN
(2018
ed.),
https://aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/AULUnsafe-2018-Final-Proof.pdf.
1 No party’s counsel authored any part of this brief. No person
other than Amicus and their counsel contributed money intended
to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. Counsel for
all parties received timely notice and have consented to the filing
of this brief.
2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This Amicus Brief addresses the first question
presented by Cross-Petitioner: whether “abortion
providers [can] be presumed to have third-party
standing to challenge health and safety regulations on
behalf of their patients absent a ‘close’ relationship
with their patients and a ‘hindrance’ to their patients’
ability to sue on their own behalf.” Specifically,
Amicus focuses on the first prong regarding whether
abortion clinics and doctors have a “close” relationship
with their patients.
Louisiana abortion clinics have a long history of
health and safety violations, and Louisiana abortion
doctors have a long history of professional disciplinary
actions and substandard medical care. This history
reveals that not only do Louisiana abortion providers
lack the kind of “close” relationship ordinarily
required for third-party standing, but also that there
is an inherent conflict of interest between abortion
providers and their patients regarding state health
and safety regulations. Therefore, Plaintiffs cannot be
presumed to enjoy a “close” relationship with their
patients when it comes to legal challenges brought
against the very laws the State intends for the
protection of their patients’ health and safety, and
they should not have third-party standing.
3
ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs do not have a “close” relationship with
their patients and should not have third-party
standing.
In Singleton v. Wulff, this Court concluded that “it
generally is appropriate to allow a physician to assert
the rights of women patients as against governmental
interference with the abortion decision.” 428 U.S. 106,
118 (1976). Based on this generality, this Court and
lower courts have assumed carte blanche that
abortion providers have third-party standing on
behalf of women seeking abortion without any
meaningful, particularized analysis. Cf. Whole
Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292, 2322
(2016) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (“[A] plurality of this
Court fashioned a blanket rule allowing third-party
standing in abortion cases.”). Considering abortion
providers routinely challenge state health and safety
regulations designed to protect their patients, this
presumption is at odds with this Court’s third-party
standing doctrine requiring: (1) a “close” relationship
between the third party and the person who possess
the right, and (2) a “‘hinderance’ to the possessor’s
ability to protect his own interests.” Kowalski v.
Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 130 (2004).
There is an inherent conflict of interest between
abortion providers and their patients when it comes to
state health and safety regulations. It is impossible for
abortion clinics and doctors to share or represent the
interests of their patients when they seek to eliminate
4
the very regulations designed to protect their patients’
health and safety.
Abortion providers routinely bring legal
challenges against state health and safety
regulations, and Louisiana abortion clinics and
doctors are no different.2 These cases often involve the
unsubstantiated claims that the health and safety
regulations will close clinics or “force physicians in
Louisiana to cease providing abortion services to
women.” Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405, 410 (5th
Cir. 2001) (en banc). Yet despite these doomsday
predictions, abortion clinics remain open and doctors
continue to provide abortions when the regulations do
go into effect. See, e.g., id. at 410 (claiming that if Act
825 goes into effect, it will “eliminate abortions in
Louisiana”); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800.12 (Act 825
currently in effect).
Plaintiffs bring the current legal challenge
against a backdrop of serious health and safety
2 See, e.g., Choice Inc. v. Greenstein, 691 F.3d 710 (5th Cir. 2012)
(Louisiana abortion clinics—Causeway Medical Clinic, Bossier
City Medical Suite, Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge, Midtown
Medical, and Women’s Health Care Center—brought a legal
challenge against a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinic
licensing compliance standards.); Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d
405 (5th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (Louisiana abortion clinics and
doctors—including Causeway Medical Suite, Bossier City
Medical Suite, Hope Medical Group for Women, Delta Women’s
Clinic, Women’s Health Clinic, Dr. Ifeanyi Charles Anthony
Okpalobi, and Dr. A. James Whitmore, III—brought a legal
challenge against a Louisiana law giving women a private tort
remedy against abortion doctors for damages to both mother and
unborn child during an abortion procedure.).
5
violations by Louisiana abortion clinics and
professional disciplinary actions and substandard
medical care by Louisiana abortion doctors. This
history demonstrates that Plaintiffs do not have a
“close” relationship with their patients and should not
have third-party standing.3
A. Louisiana abortion clinics—including
Plaintiff June Medical Services—have a
long history of serious health and safety
violations.
Louisiana abortion clinics have a slew of health
and safety violations documented in Statements of
Deficiencies (SOD) by the Louisiana Department of
Health (LDH).4 Below is a sampling of some of the
more egregious violations reported by LDH for five
Louisiana abortion clinics: June Medical Services,
Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge, Women’s Health Care
Center, Bossier City Medical Suite, and Causeway
Medical Clinic. The first three clinics are still
operating, while the Bossier City and Causeway
clinics closed soon after failing to report a rape of a
minor and performing an abortion on a minor without
judicial consent or parental notice, respectively.
June Medical Services. Plaintiff June Medical
Services, doing business as Hope Medical Group for
Women in Shreveport, is currently challenging
3 This Court need not overturn Singleton v. Wulff to conclude that
Plaintiffs in this case do not have third-party standing.
4 All of the LDH SODs cited in this Brief are public records
received under Louisiana Public Records Law, La. Rev. Stat.
Ann. 44:1 et seq., and are on file with Amicus.
6
Louisiana’s admitting privileges requirement in this
case, as well as a host of other Louisiana health and
safety regulations in other cases.5 Despite June
Medical’s eagerness to have abortion health and
safety regulations struck down, it has been cited for
violating patient health and safety regulations, as
well as failing to ensure proper physician
credentialing and competency.
Substandard patient care.
• 2010: Immediate Jeopardy6 situation identified
for failing to monitor each abortion patient’s
level of consciousness, respiratory status, and
cardiovascular
status
during
abortion
procedures
for
patients
receiving
See, e.g., June Medical Services v. Gee, No. 18-1323 (U.S.
petition for cert. filed Apr. 17, 2019) (challenging admitting
privileges law); June Medical Services v. Gee, No. 17-404 (M.D.
La. filed June 27, 2017) (challenging the entire out-patient
abortion regulatory scheme, covering at least 26 abortion laws,
including licensing, recordkeeping, and informed consent
requirements); June Medical Services v. Gee, No. 16-444 (M.D.
La. filed July 1, 2016) (challenging six 2016 health and safety
laws, including board certification requirement).
6 “Immediate Jeopardy” is a “situation in which entity
noncompliance has placed the health and safety of recipients in
its care at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious
impairment or death. . . . [It] is the most serious deficiency type,
and carries the most serious sanctions . . . .” Ctrs. for Medicare &
Medicaid Servs., State Operations Manual, Appendix Q—Core
Guidelines for Determining Immediate Jeopardy (Mar. 6, 2019),
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-andGuidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/som107ap_q_immedjeo
pardy.pdf.
5
7
administration of intravenous (IV) medications
and inhalation gas agents.7
• 2010: Failure to monitor the amount or length
of time the nitrous/oxygen gas was
administered to abortion patients.8
• 2010: Failure to ensure that the physician
performed and documented a physical
examination on each abortion patient.9
• 2010: Failure to ensure that the physician
verified a patient’s menstrual, obstetrical, and
medical history and questioned the patient
about past complications with anesthesia prior
to
administering
the
anesthesia
and
10
performing the abortion.
• 2012: Failure to ensure an abortion patient was
medically stable upon discharge.11
• 2012: Failure to ensure all patients completed
and signed consent forms for the abortion
procedure conducted.12
7 LDH, SOD for Hope Medical Group for Women 4, 8–9 (Aug. 13,
2010). All future citations will refer to “Hope Medical Group for
Women” as “Hope Medical.”
8 Id. at 8–12.
9 Id. at 13.
10 Id.
11 LDH, SOD for Hope Medical 3 (July 25, 2012).
12 Id. at 9.
8
Unsanitary, expired, missing, or improperly stored
instruments, medications, and medical supplies.
• 2011: Failure to properly store and safeguard
drugs and medication.13
• 2011: Failure to label the name or strength of
stored medications and identify the patient’s
name, and the date and time the medication
was prepared.14
• 2011: Failure to document date and time
medications were compounded, properly store
the medications, and identify the corresponding
storage time limit.15
• 2012: Failure to properly handle sterile
instruments and items, including placing
opened sterile trays for future patients in
procedure room while procedures were
ongoing.16
• 2012: Failure to properly clean and disinfect
instruments after use in patient procedures.17
13 LDH, SOD for Hope Medical 7–8 (May 27, 2011).
14 Id.
15 LDH, SOD for Hope Medical 4–5 (Aug. 30, 2011).
16 SOD for Hope Medical 11 (July 25, 2012).
17 Id.
9
Missing facility licenses; unlicensed or uncredentialed
medical staff providing patient care.
• 2005: Failure to ensure the clinic’s Controlled
Dangerous Substance (CDS) license was up to
date.18
• 2006: Failure to ensure physician had
admitting privileges at a local hospital or a
written transfer agreement with a physician
with admitting privileges.19
• 2009: Failure to ensure that laboratory
technicians dispensing medication were
licensed to do so.20
• 2010: Failure to ensure qualifications, training,
and competency of staff administering IV
medications and analgesic gases to patients.21
• 2010: Failure to have a qualified professional
monitor a patient during the initiation and
administration of inhalation gas agents and
after the administration of IV medications.22
• 2011, 2012: Failure to ensure nurse had the
competency, skills, and knowledge to compound
18 LDH, SOD for Hope Medical 1–2 (Sept. 19, 2005).
19 LDH, SOD for Hope Medical 1–2 (Oct. 4, 2006).
20 LDH, SOD for Hope Medical 1–2 (Sept. 3, 2009).
21 SOD for Hope Medical 2–3 (Aug. 13, 2010).
22 Id. at 4–5.
10
medication used by physicians in paracervical
blocks.23
Incomplete, inaccurate, and untimely patient medical
records and state mandated reports.
• 2010,
2011:
Failure
to
include
an
individualized, signed, and dated copy of the
physician’s standing orders in each patient’s
medical records.24
• 2011, 2017, 2018: Failure to timely submit
Induced Termination of Pregnancy (ITOP)
report with physician’s signature and failure to
submit reports for patients who had
complications.25
Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge. Delta Clinic of
Baton Rouge is still operating despite repeated
violations of health and safety regulations.
Substandard patient care.
• 2009: Immediate Jeopardy situation identified
for failing to follow standards of practice for
administering conscience sedation by placing
syringes in a non-sterile bag; failing to
23 SOD for Hope Medical 1 (Aug. 30, 2011); SOD for Hope Medical
2 (July 25, 2012).
24 SOD for Hope Medical 13–14 (Aug 13, 2010); SOD for Hope
Medical 7 (Aug. 30, 2011).
25 SOD for Hope Medical 5–7 (May 27, 2011); LDH, SOD for Hope
Medical 5–7 (June 7, 2017); LDH, SOD for Hope Medical 1–3
(Aug. 16, 2018).
11
document medication, time, and dose; failing to
monitor cardiac status; and failing to document
start and end times of abortion procedures.26
• 2019: Immediate Jeopardy situation identified
for failing to have emergency IV fluids available
for surgical abortion patient experiencing
heavy bleeding, which led to the patient being
transferred to the hospital where she
underwent a hysterectomy and bilateral
salpingectomy.27
• 2007: Failure to ensure that the physician
performed and documented a physical
examination on each abortion patient.28
• 2009: Failure to monitor level of consciousness,
respiratory status, and cardiac status during
abortion procedure for patients receiving
conscious sedation.29
• 2009: Failure to counsel abortion patients
individually and privately.30
• 2011: Failure to obtain written notarized
parental consent before performing abortion on
minor patient.31
26 LDH, SOD for Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge 6–9 (Dec. 7, 2009).
All future citations will refer to “Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge” as
“Delta Clinic.”
27 LDH, SOD for Delta Clinic 6–14 (Mar. 29, 2019).
28 LDH, SOD for Delta Clinic 1–3 (Oct. 9, 2007).
29 SOD for Delta Clinic 5, 14–17 (Dec. 7, 2009).
30 Id. at 5, 20–22.
31 LDH, SOD for Delta Clinic 5–7 (Feb. 3, 2011).
12
Unsanitary, expired, missing, or improperly stored
instruments, medications, and medical supplies.
• 2019: Immediate Jeopardy situation identified
when clinic did not have IV fluids available to
stabilize patient who had surgical abortion
complications
and
experienced
heavy
32
bleeding.
• 2009: Failure to follow manufacturer’s
guidelines and properly decontaminate vaginal
probes between patient use.33
• 2009: Failure to ensure single use IV fluid was
used only once.34
• 2009: Failure to ensure pre-written, pre-signed
prescriptions were patient-specific.35
• 2009: Failure to maintain aseptic technique for
syringes.36
• 2017: Failure to properly sterilize medical
equipment.37
32 SOD for Delta Clinic 6–14 (Mar. 29, 2019).
33 SOD for Delta Clinic 34 (Dec. 7, 2009).
34 Id. at 34–35, 39–40.
35 Id. at 40–41.
36 Id. at 9–11.
37 LDH, SOD for Delta Clinic 37–41 (Jan. 25, 2017).
13
• 2009, 2013, 2018: Failure to ensure medical
supplies and medications were not expired.38
• 2018: Failure to label and date syringes filled
with lidocaine and epinephrine.39
• 2019: Failure to maintain sufficient supply of
unexpired emergency medication for treating
complications.40
Missing facility licenses; unlicensed or uncredentialed
medical staff providing patient care.
• 2004: Failure to ensure physician had
admitting privileges at a local hospital or a
written transfer agreement with a physician
with admitting privileges.41
• 2018: Failure of nurse to obtain physician’s
order before administering medications and
biologicals.42
Incomplete, inaccurate, and untimely patient medical
records and state mandated reports.
• 2009, 2018: Failure to document name, time,
route, dose, and/or rate of administration of
38 SOD for Delta Clinic 29–30 (Dec. 7, 2009); LDH, SOD for Delta
Clinic 1 (Jan. 9, 2013); LDH, SOD for Delta Clinic 37–38 (July
13, 2018).
39 SOD for Delta Clinic 32–34 (July 13, 2018).
40 SOD for Delta Clinic 14–16 (Mar. 29, 2019).
41 LDH, SOD for Delta Clinic 1–2 (May 27, 2004).
42 SOD for Delta Clinic 5–17, 43–51 (July 13, 2018).
14
conscience sedation medication and drugs for
patients receiving paracervical blocks in
patients’ medical records.43
• 2009, 2011: Failure to follow mandatory
reporting laws for carnal knowledge, incest,
and rape of minors.44
• 2014: Failure to maintain accurate medical
records on the correct age of the alleged father
of the unborn child of a minor patient.45
• 2017, 2018: Failure to timely submit ITOP
reports signed by physician.46
Women’s Health Care Center. Women’s Health
Care Center, currently operating in New Orleans, has
received numerous health and safety deficiencies.
Substandard patient care.
• 2004: Failure to follow up with patients
regarding potential problems resulting from
43 SOD for Delta Clinic 11–14 (Dec. 7, 2009); SOD for Delta Clinic
22–29, 39–43 (July 13, 2018).
44 SOD for Delta Clinic 9, 18–20 (Dec. 7, 2009); SOD for Delta
Clinic 2–5 (Feb. 3, 2011).
45 LDH, SOD for Delta Clinic 3–4 (Apr. 1, 2014).
46 SOD for Delta Clinic 10–14, 26–31 (Jan. 25, 2017); LDH, SOD
for Delta Clinic 4–6, 10–12 (June 20, 2017); LDH, SOD for Delta
Clinic 1–2 (July 11, 2018); SOD for Delta Clinic 30–31 (July 13,
2018).
15
the use of an unsanitary instrument during
abortion procedure.47
• 2013: Failure to ensure a patient, referring
physician, or performing physician signed
informed consent form for an abortion
procedure.48
• 2015: Failure to document complication of a
patient who experienced heavy vaginal
bleeding eight days after her chemical abortion,
was picked up by a clinic staff member and
brought to the clinic, and was then
subsequently transported by clinic staff to the
hospital.49
• 2018: Failure to inform persons inquiring about
abortion of Louisiana’s website containing
informed consent information about abortion—
including abortion options and alternatives—
during initial contact as required by law.50
47 LDH, SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 2, 6–7 (Aug. 5,
2004).
48 LDH, SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 1–2 (Nov. 7, 2013).
49 LDH, SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 5–7 (Sept. 2,
2015).
50 LDH, SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 2–7 (June 19,
2018).
16
Unsanitary, expired, missing, or improperly stored
instruments, medications, and medical supplies.
• 2004: Failure to properly sterilize surgical
equipment
and
instruments,
including
instruments used to enter the uterine cavity.51
• 2015: Failure to disinfect abdominal ultrasound
probe.52
Missing facility licenses; unlicensed or uncredentialed
medical staff providing patient care.
• 2012: Failure to provide nursing services under
the direction of a registered nurse (RN) because
the facility did not employ an RN.53
• 2010, 2015: Failure to properly evaluate
licensed medical personnel and non-licensed
staff for competency.54
• 2018: Failure to ensure the clinic medical
director who procured/ordered a controlled
dangerous substance had a current CDS
license.55
51 SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 2–6 (Aug. 5, 2004).
52 SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 11–13 (Sept. 2, 2015).
LDH, SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 1–2 (Nov. 14,
2012).
54 LDH, SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 5 (Oct. 19, 2010);
SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 3–4 (Sept. 2, 2015).
55 SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 8–10 (June 19, 2018).
53
17
Incomplete, inaccurate, and untimely patient medical
records and state mandated reports.
• 2004: Failure to document medications
administered and post-operative care in
patients’ medical records.56
• 2010, 2013, 2016: Failure to timely submit
ITOP reports signed by physician, and failure
to ensure reports contained accurate
information.57
• 2015:
Failure
to
document
patient
communication, complications, transport to
hospital, or hospital admittance in patient
medical records.58
Leroy Brinkley. Leroy Brinkley, who operates
both Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge and Women’s Health
Care Center, and as well as other clinics in the past
and in other states, has a history of reportedly
unscrupulous business practices.
For example, Brinkley was held personally liable
for Delta Clinic’s $337,000 fine for violating the
Federal Controlled Substances Act after the clinic
failed to pay. See United States v. Clinical Leasing
Service, Inc., 982 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1992). He also
employed the infamous Dr. Kermit Gosnell as an
56 LDH, SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 3–5 (Apr. 8, 2004).
57 SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 2 (Oct. 19, 2010); LDH,
SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 4–5 (Nov. 7, 2013); LDH,
SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 4–8 (Sept. 12, 2016).
58 SOD for Women’s Health Care Center 5–6 (Sept. 2, 2015).
18
independent contractor at his Delaware clinic,
Atlantic Women’s Medical Services.59 Brinkley would
send women whom the Delaware clinic could not help
(presumably because they were seeking a late-term
abortion) across state lines to Gosnell’s clinic in
Pennsylvania.60 Gosnell’s clinic was “convicted for the
first-degree murder of three infants who were born
alive and for the manslaughter of a patient.”
Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. at 2343 (Alito, J., dissenting).
When Brinkley was subpoenaed for Gosnell’s patient
files, he was only able to produce three files and could
not explain what happened to the rest.61
Bossier City Medical Suite. Bossier City
Medical was located in Bossier City, Louisiana until
the clinic’s abrupt closure on April 1, 2017, two
months after LDH reported that the clinic failed to
report a rape of a minor. About a month after the clinic
closed, all of the patient files were destroyed by the
clinic’s former principal. Declaration of Roneal
Martin, Gee v. Bossier City Medical Suite, No. 1800369 (E.D. Tex. July 3, 2018).
59 Testimony of Leroy Brinkley, In re Cnty. Investigating Grand
Jury XXIII, No. 000-9901-2010, at 9 (First Jud. Dist. of Pa. Ct.
Com. Pl. Nov. 4, 2010).
60 Id. at 42.
61 Id. at 19–20.
19
Substandard patient care.
• 2009: Failure to assess patients who had been
administered narcotic medications prior to
their abortion procedure.62
Unsanitary, expired, missing, or improperly stored
instruments, medications, and medical supplies.
• 2004: Failure to ensure medications were not
expired.63
• 2004: Failure to ensure clinic was supplied with
emergency medications.64
• 2009:
Failure
to
maintain
sanitary
environment by keeping a suction bottle for
“special procedures” in a biohazard bag inside a
trash can, storing an open jug of distilled water
next to disinfection spray, and allowing rust
and dirt to build up on the metal of procedure
beds.65
• 2017: Failure to ensure proper sterilization of
surgical instruments.66
62 LDH, SOD for Bossier City Medical Suite 1 (July 2, 2009). All
future citations will refer to “Bossier City Medical Suite” as
“Bossier City.”
63 LDH, SOD for Bossier City 6 (Jan. 20, 2004).
64 Id. at 7.
65 SOD for Bossier City 1–3 (July 2, 2009).
66 LDH, SOD for Bossier City 13–16 (Feb. 1, 2017).
20
Missing facility licenses and patient care by unlicensed
or uncredentialed medical staff.
• 2004: Failure to have site-specific CDS license
and
Drug
Enforcement
Administration
registration needed to order drugs.67
• 2007: Failure to ensure nurse administering IV
medications received in-service training,
completed formalized training course, and
received signed physician statement to
administer medications to patients.68
Incomplete, inaccurate, and untimely patient medical
records and state mandated reports.
• 2004: Failure to maintain records
prescription drugs dispensed to patients.69
of
• 2017: Failure to timely submit ITOP reports
with physician signature.70
• 2017: Failure to report rape of minor child to
proper authorities.71
Causeway Medical Clinic. Causeway Medical
Clinic was located in Metairie until its abrupt closure
on February 10, 2016, less than three months after
67 SOD for Bossier City 7 (Jan. 20, 2004).
68 LDH, SOD for Bossier City 1–2 (Aug. 27, 2007).
69 SOD for Bossier City 6–7 (Jan. 20, 2004).
70 SOD for Bossier City 6–11 (Feb. 1, 2017).
71 Id. at 6–7, 11–13.
21
LDH reported that the clinic performed an abortion on
a minor without parental consent or judicial notice.
Substandard patient care.
• 2009: Immediate Jeopardy situation identified
for failure to monitor rate of IV sedation, level
of consciousness, respiratory status, and
cardiovascular status during patients’ abortion
procedure.72
• 2011: Failure to ask minor patients the age of
the alleged father of the minor’s unborn child or
whether sexual contact had been consensual or
forced—information necessary to comply with
mandatory state reporting of “abuse of minors
as it relates to carnal knowledge, incest, and
rape of minors.”73
• 2012, 2015: Failure to obtain parental consent
or judicial bypass before performing an
abortion on a minor.74
• 2014: Failure to document patient’s vital signs
during post-procedure recovery or at time of
discharge.75
72 LDH, SOD for Causeway Medical Clinic 3–9 (July 2, 2009). All
future citations will refer to “Causeway Medical Clinic” as
“Causeway.”
73 LDH, SOD for Causeway 2–5 (Jan. 27, 2011).
74 LDH, SOD for Causeway 2–5 (May 15, 2012); LDH, SOD for
Causeway 10–15 (Nov. 30, 2015).
75 LDH, SOD for Causeway 2–4 (May 28, 2014).
22
• 2015: Failure to investigate a complaint and
grievance of a mother whose minor daughter
had an abortion without parental consent or
judicial bypass.76
Unsanitary, expired, missing, or improperly stored
instruments, medications, and medical supplies.
• 2009: Failure to have reversal agent for
sedation in emergency medical and supply
box.77
• 2009: Failure to maintain a clean environment
to prevent possibility of cross-contamination
between patients and/or staff.78
• 2009, 2012: Failure to ensure medications were
not expired.79
• 2011: Failure to ensure vaginal ultrasound
transducer was properly disinfected and
sanitized between patient use.80
76 SOD for Causeway 10–13 (Nov. 30, 2015).
77 SOD for Causeway 10, 12 (July 2, 2009).
78 Id. at 19.
79 Id. at 22; SOD for Causeway 6–7 (May 15, 2012).
80 SOD for Causeway 14–15 (Jan. 27, 2011).
23
Missing facility licenses; unlicensed or uncredentialed
medical staff providing patient care.
• 2009: Failure to ensure abortion clinic was
inspected and approved annually by the Office
of Public Health.81
• 2009, 2015: Failure to obtain physician’s order
before administering medications.82
• 2009: Failure to have qualified staff administer
IV sedation.83
• 2011, 2015: Failure to determine physicians’
specific
privileges
at
clinic,
privilege
qualifications, license restrictions, or evidence
of prior malpractice claims or settlements.84
Incomplete, inaccurate, and untimely patient medical
records and state mandated reports.
• 2009: Failure to accurately document in
patients’ medical records the rate of IV
sedation, level of consciences, cardiac status,
and respiratory status throughout stay until
discharge.85
81 SOD for Causeway 1 (July 2, 2009).
82 Id. at 21–22; SOD for Causeway 5–8 (Nov. 30, 2015).
83 SOD for Causeway 15–16 (July 2, 2009).
84 SOD for Causeway 8 (Jan. 27, 2011); SOD for Causeway 2–4
(Nov. 30, 2015).
85 SOD for Causeway 2–9 (July 2, 2009).
24
• 2013: Failure to record correct age of the
alleged father of the unborn child of a minor
patient.86
All of the clinic violations reported in the LDH
Statement of Deficiencies demonstrate that Louisiana
abortion clinics do not share the same interests as
their patients when it comes to health and safety, and
as such cannot have the necessary “close” relationship
for third-party standing.
B. Louisiana abortion doctors have a long
history of professional disciplinary
actions and substandard medical care.
In Louisiana abortion doctors have received
numerous professional disciplinary actions by the
Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners
(“Board”). These actions reveal that past and current
abortion doctors have engaged in unprofessional and
unethical behavior, and substandard medical care of
their patients.87 Five of these abortion doctors—some
of whom have been involved in legal challenges
against Louisiana health and safety laws—are
discussed below.
Dr. Adrian J. Coleman. Dr. Coleman was an
abortion doctor at the Delta Clinic. In 2008 and 2009,
his operative vaginal delivery privileges and his
clinical privileges were suspended at two medical
86 LDH, SOD for Causeway 1–3 (May 30, 2013).
87 All Board disciplinary reports are judicially noticeable public
documents
available
on
the
Board’s
website:
https://secure.pharmacy.la.gov/Lookup/LicenseLookup.aspx. See
Fed. R. Evid. 201.
25
facilities, respectively—first after an infant died
during a delivery he performed and second after he
had an “unacceptably high number of absences from
obstetrical deliveries, [did] not adequately evaluate
and care for his patients in the labor and delivery unit,
and fail[ed] to document his patient care adequately
and accurately.”88 As a result, the Board placed Dr.
Coleman’s medical license on probation for three years
in 2010 and prohibited him from performing all
operative vaginal delivery procedures, a prohibition
that would not be lifted until the Board determined
that he was “competent to perform [surgical]
procedures safely and in accordance with the
prevailing standards of medical practice.”89 He passed
away in 2011.
Dr. Ifeanyi Charles Anthony Okpalobi. Dr.
Okpalobi was involved in multiple legal challenges to
Louisiana abortion health and safety laws, including
a Louisiana law that created a private tort remedy for
women against abortion doctors for damages to both
the mother and unborn child during an abortion
procedure. See, e.g., Okpalobi, 244 F.3d 405. During
this legal challenge he was cited by the Board for
failing to report multiple malpractice complaints and
settlements.90 His failure to report, in addition to
allegations that he “demonstrated professional and/or
medical incompetency by his inability to provide
timely and appropriate care to his patients, including
88 In the Matter of: Adrian Joseph Coleman: No. 08-I-775, at 1
(La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Mar. 15, 2010).
89 Id. at 2–3.
90 In the Matter of: Ifeanyi Okpalobi, No. 93-I-051-X (La. Bd. Med.
Exam’rs Mar. 8, 1999).
26
but not limited to risk assessment, pre-natal and postnatal management, determination of uterine size and
gestational age, and testing and evaluation related to
abortion,” resulted in a consent order by which Dr.
Okpalobi agreed to have his medical license put on a
three-year probationary period and to an indefinite
prohibition on his obstetrical practice.91 In 2012, Dr.
Okpalobi was officially reprimanded for his repeated
failures to meet Abortion Facility Licensing
Standards and continued conduct that was indicative
of a practice which “fail[ed] to satisfy the prevailing
and usually accepted standards of medical practice.”92
He was required to receive Board approval for any
intended medical practice.93 He passed away in 2018.
Dr. A. James Whitmore, III. Dr. Whitmore was
part of the same legal challenge as Dr. Okpalobi
against the Louisiana abortion tort remedy law. See
Okpalobi, 244 F.3d 405. Prior to this challenge, Dr.
Whitmore was involved in two deliveries of children in
which his diagnoses and treatments were
inappropriate and resulted in the birth of one child
brain damaged, the death of one other child, and an
inappropriate Caesarean section.94 About a decade
later, while working at Delta Clinic, Dr. Whitmore
used instruments that were rusty, cracked, and
unsterile; single-use instruments on multiple
patients; and a sterilization solution that was
91 Id.
92 In the Matter of: Ifeanyi Charles Okpalobi, No. 10-I-033, at 1
(La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs May 9, 2012).
93 Id. at 3.
94 In the Matter of: A. James Whitmore, No. 92-A-001, at 1 (La.
Bd. Med. Exam’rs May 21, 1992).
27
infrequently changed and often had pieces of tissue
floating in it.95 After a second trimester abortion he
performed, the patient continued to have moderate
bleeding, but the ambulance was not called until
almost three hours later.96 When the patient arrived
in the emergency room, it was discovered that she had
a perforated uterus, her uterine artery was lacerated,
and it was necessary to perform a complete
hysterectomy.97 The Board found Dr. Whitmore guilty
of unprofessional conduct and continuing or recurring
medical practices which failed to satisfy accepted
medical standards based on his “disregard of proper
sanitary procedures, his rude and callous treatment of
his patients, his refusal to answer their questions, and
his tardy recognition of the seriousness of the
condition of [a] patient [that] endanger[ed] her life.”98
Based on these actions, the Board had “grave
reservations as to Dr. Whitmore’s professional
competency,” and placed his medical license on
immediate probation for an indefinite period.99
Dr. Victor Brown. Dr. Brown has received many
disciplinary actions from the Board. In 1989, after
allegedly writing and issuing prescriptions for
controlled substances to five patients without
legitimate medical justification, Dr. Brown entered
into a consent order placing his medical license on
probation for three years and prohibiting him for the
95 In the Matter of: A. James Whitmore, III, No. 00-A-021, at 2
(La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Jan. 22, 2002).
96 Id. at 3.
97 Id.
98 Id.
99 Id.
28
duration of his medical career from prescribing,
dispensing, or administering any Schedule II
controlled substance.100 In 1997, a medical center
suspended his surgical/invasive/endoscopic clinical
privileges after an investigation revealed that his
definition, evaluation, and treatment of infertility
were inconsistent and not in keeping with generally
recognized medical standards since he performed
dilation and curettage on almost every patient even
when the procedure was not medically indicated or
necessary.101 Dr. Brown failed to report the loss of his
privileges on three different medical license renewal
applications, so when the Board discovered this in
2000, he agreed to a consent order placing his medical
license on indefinite probation and a lifetime
limitation on the practice of medicine in the field of
obstetrics/gynecology.102 Specifically, he was never
again to perform any prenatal care in any and all
surgical/invasive/endoscopic procedures, including
dilations and curettages, dilations and evacuations,
dilations and extractions, abortions, and vaginal or
cesarean deliveries.103 But in 2005, Dr. Brown
violated the 2000 consent order by engaging in and
practicing medicine he was not authorized to practice.
His license was once again placed on indefinite
probation and he was further restricted from
performing cervical or vaginal biopsies and
100 In the Matter of: Victor Brown, No. 89-A-035, at 2 (La. Bd.
Med. Exam’rs Dec. 8, 1989).
101 In the Matter of: Victor Brown, No. 99-I-035, at 1 (La. Bd. Med.
Exam’rs Mar. 24, 2000).
102 Id. at 4.
103 Id.
29
performing or interpreting ultrasounds of any kind.104
In 2007, Dr. Brown’s medical license was revoked and
cancelled for violating the terms of the 2005 consent
order, unprofessional conduct, and professional and
medical incompetency when he gave prenatal care to
an abortion patient by either giving the patient a
prescription without first examining her or taking and
interpreting an ultrasound and then prescribing the
patient an abortifacient.105
Dr. Kevin Work. Dr. Work has received multiple
disciplinary actions from the Board. In 2009, his
medical license was placed on a one year probation
after a hospital suspended his clinical privileges.106 In
2014, after Dr. Work allowed staff to use his name and
electronic signature, and engage in the practice of
medicine, he agreed to a one year probation on his
medical license and a requirement that the Board
approve any future practice of medicine.107 In 2016,
after again allowing unlicensed staff members to
practice medicine by performing ultrasounds and
providing prenatal care at his clinic, Dr. Work agreed
not practice medicine in any capacity for one year.108
In 2017, his license was reinstated on a two-year
104 In the Matter of: Victor Brown, No. 01-I-037, at 3 (La. Bd. Med.
Exam’rs Aug. 15, 2005).
105 In the Matter of: Victor Brown, No. 06-A-021, at 2, 5 (La. Bd.
Med. Exam’rs Sept. 17, 2007).
106 In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 08-I-774, at 1–2 (La.
Bd. Med. Exam’rs Mar. 16, 2009).
107 In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 13-I-014, at 1–3 (La.
Bd. Med. Exam’rs Oct. 17, 2014).
108 In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 15-A-009, at 3 (La.
Bd. Med. Exam’rs Feb. 15, 2016).
30
probation requiring that he only engage in the
practice of medicine as approved by the Board and in
a non-solo practitioner setting.109 In 2019, his medical
license was suspended pending resolution of claims
relating to practicing at an abortion clinic without
prior Board approval.110 As part of a consent order, he
was officially reprimanded and placed on probation for
two years with the same restrictions as in 2017, but
with the addition that another physician be present
any time he practices medicine and a covenant that,
regardless of the status of his medical license, “he will
not practice in the area of abortion care in the State of
Louisiana” and “will not practice obstetrics in the
State . . . other than diagnosing pregnancy and
referring pregnant patients.”111 Dr. Work’s medical
license was reinstated without restriction on June 20,
2019.112
In sum, Louisiana abortion doctors’ multiple
professional disciplinary actions for substandard
medical care and blatant disregard for their patients’
health and safety—in addition to the numerous health
and safety violations of Louisiana abortion clinics—
demonstrate that abortion providers’ interests are at
odds with their patients’ interests. As such, Plaintiffs
do not have a “close” relationship with their patients
and should not have third-party standing.
109 In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 15-A-009, at 1–2 (La.
Bd. Med. Exam’rs June 20, 2017).
110 In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 19-I-144 (La. Bd.
Med. Exam’rs Feb. 26, 2019).
111 In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 2019-A-011, at 1–2
(La. Bd. Med. Exam’rs Apr. 15, 2019).
112 In the Matter of: Kevin Govan Work, No. 2019-A-11 (La. Bd.
Med. Exam’rs June 10, 2019).
31
CONCLUSION
If the Court grants the petition in No. 18-1323, it
should grant the Conditional Cross-Petition.
Respectfully submitted,
CATHERINE GLENN FOSTER
RACHEL N. MORRISON
Counsel of Record
NATALIE M. HEJRAN
AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE
1150 Connecticut Ave NW,
Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20036
Rachel.Morrison@aul.org
(202) 741-4902
JUNE 24, 2019
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.