Posted on Friday, November 6, 2020 1:48 pm Posted by Andrew Hamm
This week we’re highlighting testimony petitions asking the Supreme Court to review, among other things, conflicting lower court decisions on the Trump administration rule prohibiting clinics that receive funds through the federal Title X program from making abortion referrals.
Title X Family Planning Program offers grants to support health services, including cancer screening and pregnancy counseling. By law, no funds from Chapter 10 “may be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” In 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services issued its ruling on the grounds that:[i]fa The draft Title X refers to … abortion as a method of family planning, which is a program “where abortion is a method of family planning”. The previous rule allowed Address X clinics to provide advice on abortions and referrals upon request. Opponents of the rule claim it would prevent providers from complying with requirements that “all pregnancy consultations” should be “non-directive.” The administration maintains that the rule resembles the 1988 rule upheld by the Supreme Court Rust v Sullivan. (Petitions asking judges to dissolve the legality of the ruling reach the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling)American Medical Association v. Azar And the Oregon v. Azar(Overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit)Azar v. Mayor and Baltimore City Council).
This and others Petitions of the week Below:
San Antonio v. Hotels.com, LP
the case: Whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit alone decided, “is lacking.” An estimate to deny or reduce “appeals costs deemed” taxable “in county court under Fed by. R. App. P. 39 (e).
American Medical Association v. Azar
Issues(1) Whether the Department of Health and Human Services rule for Title X family planning program – which prohibits and enforces some pregnancy-related speech between Title X provider and her patient, and prohibits information related to abortion but requires information about – abortion options – is arbitrary and volatile; (2) Whether the rule violates the Title X Appropriations Act, which requires that “all pregnancy consultations” under Title X be “non-directive”; And (3) whether the rule is being violated Section 1554 of the Affordable Care ActWhich requires HHS to “not issue any regulation” that harms patient care in any of the six ways, including intervention.[ing] With “communications” between the patient and her provider.
Azar v. Mayor and Baltimore City Council
Issues(1) Whether the Department of Health and Human Services rule prohibiting Title X projects from providing referrals for abortion as a method of family planning falls within the agency’s legal authority; And (2) whether the rule is the product of logical decision-making.
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC against Renewable Fuels Association
the caseWhether to qualify for the hardship exemption Section 7545 (S) (9) (B) (I) From the renewable fuel standards, a small refinery has needed to obtain exemptions from constant and ongoing hardship every year since 2011.
Pace vs. the United States
Issues: (1) either 10 USC § 825, Which allows a military commander to hand over selected members to sit on the military court, as applied in the Pedro Pace case – in which an all-white board indicted a black suspect of sexual misconduct against a white woman – violates Law Five. Modify; And (2) whether the court of first instance was wrong to refuse to return Pace’s case in order to investigate additional facts.
Freeman v. Wainwright
the caseWhether the statute of limitations for filing a habeas corpus begins when the new judgment rendered after the indignation becomes final
Stanley v. ExpressJet Airlines Inc.
Issues(1) Whether claims arising under federal law are subject to the mandatory arbitration requirements of the Railroad Act and under what circumstances; And (2) whether the investigation of “unjustified hardship” in a case under Chapter Seven is an affirmative defense of liability.
Oregon v. Azar
Issues(1) Whether the Department of Health and Human Services final rule – which prohibits Title X service providers from communicating certain information related to abortion to their patients and requires the physical separation of Title X funded care from healthcare facilities providing abortion services or information related to abortion – violates Accreditation laws requiring “all Pregnancy Counseling” on Title X to be “non-directive”; (2) Whether the final rule violates Article 1554 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits HHS from issuing “any regulation” that creates “unreasonable barriers” to obtaining appropriate medical care, impedes “timely access” to this care, and interferes with With – service provider communications “in relation to the full range of treatment options”, restricting service providers from disclosing “all relevant information to patients making health care decisions”, or violating service providers’ ethical standards; And (3) whether the final rule is arbitrary and volatile, in violation of the Code of Administrative Procedure, including failure to adequately respond to concerns that (a) the rule requires medical professionals to violate medical ethics and (b) counseling restrictions and imposes a physical separation requirement Significant costs and impairs access to care.
Petitions of the week: Three cases test the legality of a federal ban on abortion referrals,
Scotus Blog (November 6, 2020, 1:48 pm), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/petitions-of-the-week-three-cases-testing-the-legality-of-a -federal – referrals upon abortion /