Supreme Court will not take up challenge to restrictive Arkansas abortion law. The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up an Arkansas law that challengers say could end the use of medication abortions in the state. The law requires doctors who provide medication abortions to have a contract with a specialist who has hospital admitting privileges. Abortion providers say the requirement is burdensome and unnecessary because complications are extremely rare from the two-pill regimen that is used in the first nine weeks of pregnancy, and any that do arise can be handled by a local emergency room or hospital. The state has only three abortion clinics, and two of those offer only medication abortions. So the law could leave only one clinic, in Little Rock, to serve the entire state--and it would have to offer only surgical abortions. Challengers can still ask a judge to strike down the law, but may have to prove how many women could be affected by it. U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker temporarily blocked the law, concluding that any medical benefit from the contract requirement would be “incrementally small” while the burden on women’s access to abortion would be substantial. The law was “a solution in search of a problem,” the judge said. Two years ago, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 3 to overturn a similar Texas law that required doctors who provided abortions to have admitting privileges in a local hospital. The Texas law “provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority. The admitting-privileges requirement in Texas cut the number of abortion providers by half. But a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld the Arkansas law. That court said Baker had “failed to make factual findings estimating the number of women burdened by the statute”--those who would either forgo or postpone an abortion because of the law. Planned Parenthood said in its petition to the Supreme Court that was an approach the majority had rejected in the Texas decision, and that the burden in Arkansas would be extreme. “The restriction would eliminate entirely a safe, common method of early abortion and force all women in the state to travel (twice) to a single provider in Little Rock to have a surgical procedure — thereby preventing many women from obtaining an abortion altogether and delaying many others,” the petition said. “Worse yet, it would do so even where a medication abortion is medically indicated or strongly preferred.” But the Supreme Court declined to accept the challenge, without noted dissent even from liberal justices who are supportive of abortion rights. The case is Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma v. Jegley.

Supreme Court will not take up challenge to restrictive Arkansas abortion law.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up an Arkansas law that challengers say could end the use of medication abortions in the state.

The law requires doctors who provide medication abortions to have a contract with a specialist who has hospital admitting privileges. Abortion providers say the requirement is burdensome and unnecessary because complications are extremely rare from the two-pill regimen that is used in the first nine weeks of pregnancy, and any that do arise can be handled by a local emergency room or hospital.

The state has only three abortion clinics, and two of those offer only medication abortions. So the law could leave only one clinic, in Little Rock, to serve the entire state--and it would have to offer only surgical abortions.

Challengers can still ask a judge to strike down the law, but may have to prove how many women could be affected by it.

U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker temporarily blocked the law, concluding that any medical benefit from the contract requirement would be “incrementally small” while the burden on women’s access to abortion would be substantial. The law was “a solution in search of a problem,” the judge said.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 3 to overturn a similar Texas law that required doctors who provided abortions to have admitting privileges in a local hospital.

The Texas law “provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority.

The admitting-privileges requirement in Texas cut the number of abortion providers by half.

But a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld the Arkansas law.

That court said Baker had “failed to make factual findings estimating the number of women burdened by the statute”--those who would either forgo or postpone an abortion because of the law.

Planned Parenthood said in its petition to the Supreme Court that was an approach the majority had rejected in the Texas decision, and that the burden in Arkansas would be extreme.

“The restriction would eliminate entirely a safe, common method of early abortion and force all women in the state to travel (twice) to a single provider in Little Rock to have a surgical procedure — thereby preventing many women from obtaining an abortion altogether and delaying many others,” the petition said. “Worse yet, it would do so even where a medication abortion is medically indicated or strongly preferred.”

But the Supreme Court declined to accept the challenge, without noted dissent even from liberal justices who are supportive of abortion rights.

The case is Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma v. Jegley.