Case Title: Weems v. State (Synopsis)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 2019-04-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE 2019 MT 98, DA 18-0308: HELEN WEEMS and JANE DOE, Plaintiffs v. STATE OF MONTANA, by and through Timothy C. Fox, in his official capacity as Attorney General, and TRAVIS R. AHNER, in his official capacity as the County Attorney for Flathead County, Defendants.1 The Montana Supreme Court today upheld a Helena District Judge’s April 2018 order temporarily permitting qualified Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) to perform outpatient early-term abortions while they challenge in court the constitutionality of a state law that restricts abortion practice to physicians and physicians’ assistants. The lawsuit focuses on a 1999 decision that Montana’s constitutional right to privacy allows a woman to obtain a pre-viability abortion from a qualified health care provider of her choosing. The Supreme Court held that the District Court properly found a likelihood of irreparable injury during the pendency of the lawsuit to patients who would qualify for the procedure. The Court relied on the Plaintiffs’ evidence that APRNs already are permitted full authority to prescribe medications and that the Plaintiffs could do so for early-term abortion procedures but for the statutory restriction. The Court also cited Plaintiffs’ evidence that APRNs have independent practice authority based on national certification standards and that Montana Board of Nursing regulations do not identify specific procedures they may or may not perform. The Plaintiffs offered sufficient evidence to support the District Court’s finding that the statute prevented them from completing the requisite competency training requirements to offer the additional services. The District Court still must consider and issue a final decision whether Board of Nursing rules would authorize abortion practice for Montana APRNs if the statute did not prohibit it. Three Justices dissented on the ground that preliminary injunctive relief was not appropriate at this stage of the lawsuit. They noted the District Court had not received any evidence, but relied solely on the affidavits submitted by the Plaintiffs, which had not been tested by cross-examination or the Rules of Evidence. Further, the Plaintiffs had not yet established that the Board of Nursing had authorized the Plaintiffs to perform abortion procedures pursuant to their licensing. Indeed, that the District Court had enjoined the statute by speculating that the Board would approve the procedure in the future. The Dissenting Justices argued this was an insufficient showing for the purpose of enjoining a longstanding statute that had been the status quo since 2007. The case remains pending in the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County. 1 This synopsis has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It constitutes no part of the Opinion of the Court and may not be cited as precedent. 04/26/2019 Case Number: DA 18-0308