Abstract
In recent years, state legislatures have enacted a variety of restrictive statutes making it more difficult for abortion providers to serve their patients, typically in the name of health and safety. Those opposing these restrictive statutes commonly refer to them as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws. This Note discusses admitting privileges statutes, which require that abortion providers maintain permissions with a local hospital to admit and treat their patients. Admitting privileges statutes have been challenged in federal courts, but the resulting decisions have been inconsistent. This Note compares the analysis used by federal circuits and district courts in reviewing admitting privileges statutes under Planned Parenthood v. Casey’s undue burden standard, and concludes that in all cases admitting privileges statutes should be struck down as unconstitutional for violating a woman’s right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment. Admitting privileges statutes place an undue burden on a woman’s access to abortion services by severely restricting abortion providers’ ability to operate legally. This limitation deprives abortion providers of an important property right in the scope of their medical license, and this deprivation is a violation of the physicians’ substantive and procedural due process rights.
Recommended Citation
Glass, Daniel J.
(2015)
"Not in My Hospital: The Future of State Statutes Requiring Abortion Providers to Maintain Admitting Privileges at Local Hospitals,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 49:
Iss.
1, Article 7.
Available at:
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol49/iss1/7