West Alabama Women's Center et al v. Miller

Filing 30

OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/31/2015. (kh, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

WEST ALABAMA WOMEN’S
)
CENTER and WILLIAM J.
)
PARKER, M.D., on behalf of )
themselves and their
)
patients,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
DONALD E. WILLIAMSON,
)
M.D., in his official
)
capacity as State Health
)
Officer,
)
)
Defendant.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:15cv497-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
On July 10, 2015, plaintiffs West Alabama Women’s
Center

(a

licensed

abortion

clinic

in

Tuscaloosa,

Alabama) and Dr. William J. Parker (the Center’s sole
doctor) filed a constitutional as-applied challenge to
a

state

regulation.

The

regulation,

Alabama

Administrative Code § 420-5-1-.03(6)(b), requires that,
in order for a facility to provide abortion services,
either

the

doctor

who

performs

abortions

must

have

‘admitting

privileges’

at

a

local

hospital,

or

the

facility must contract with a ‘covering physician’ who
has those privileges.
Williamson,

in

his

The defendant is Dr. Donald E.
official

capacity

as

the

State

Health Officer.
This matter is now before the court on the parties’
joint request to stay proceedings for a period of one
year.

For reasons that follow, the request will be

granted.

I.
The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and their
patients,

claim

that

the

challenged

regulation

is

unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth
§ 1983

and

Amendment,
as

applied

as

enforced

to

them,

through

because

42

it

U.S.C.

violates

their patients’ rights to liberty and privacy and their
right

to

pursue

their

business

and

profession.

Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal
question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights).

2

With the filing of their July 10 complaint, the
plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order and
a

preliminary

regulation.
enjoined

injunction
On

against

August

enforcement

4,

with

the

the

enforcement
court

the

temporarily

understanding

supporting opinion would follow.

of

that

a

W. Alabama Women’s

Ctr. v. Williamson, 2015 WL 4932810 (M.D. Ala. 2015)
(Thompson, J.).

On August 13, the court issued the

promised opinion, finding, among other things, that,
“the plaintiffs have shown a substantial likelihood of
success

on

the

merits,”

W.

Alabama

Women’s

Ctr.

v.

Williamson, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, ----, 2015 WL 4873125
at * 17 (M.D. Ala. 2015) (Thompson, J.), and “that the
Center will shut down permanently if as-applied relief
is

not

abortion

granted,
in

eliminating

Tuscaloosa

and

the

ability

to

drastically

get

an

reducing

capacity throughout the State.” Id. at * 20.

And, on

August

of

17,

the

court,

with

the

agreement

the

parties, extended the temporary restraining order until
September 1.

3

As stated, now before the court is the parties’
request to stay this litigation.

The request is based

on

among

a

stipulation

that

provides,

other

things,

that the State Health Officer has granted to the Center
a waiver from the regulation for a period of one year;
that

the

“policies

plaintiffs
and

connection

shall

protocols”

with

their

continue

to

abide

submitted

to

the

motion

for

a

by

court

the
in

temporary

restraining order, Stipulation (doc. no. 29) at 1; that
the plaintiffs shall continue to make “reasonable, good
faith efforts to comply with the Regulation ... as set
forth in the Court’s August 13 Opinion,” id.; and that
the Alabama Department of Public Health shall initiate
“the rulemaking process ... to modify the Regulation so
that it will meet [the department]’s goal of ensuring
the health and safety of patients without creating an
undue

burden

Opinion.”

as

discussed

in

the

Court’s

August

13

Id. at 1-2.

In addition, because the parties expressly stated
on the record on August 26 that they do not view the

4

stipulation as a “settlement,” they may each still move
to lift the stay or jointly move to have its terms
modified at any time, and the court may likewise lift
the stay at any time.

Also, the plaintiffs may still

seek “emergency relief” at any time.

Id. at 2.

II.
Based on representations made by the parties during
an

on-the-record

telephone

call

held

on

August

26,

2015, the court finds that, for two principal reasons,
the

requested

stay

is

in

the

best

interest

of

the

patients on whose behalf the plaintiffs have brought
this

litigation.

First,

under

the

stipulation

and

waiver in support of the stay request, the Center may
remain

in

operation

for

one

year

without

comply with the challenged regulation.

having

to

Thus, with the

stay, the plaintiffs have essentially obtained, for one
year, the relief they sought with their motions for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Second,

the

stay

affords

the

5

Department

of

Public

Health, at its request, an opportunity to modify the
regulation in a way that may very well obviate the need
for this litigation.

It is in the best interest of all

if this case were resolved outside of litigation.
***
The court will, therefore, enter an order staying
this

litigation

in

accordance

with

the

parties’

stipulation.
DONE, this the 31st day of August, 2015.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson____
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE