Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-00328 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO

INTERVENE

Now before the Court are the motions to intervene filed by Christian Medical

Association, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricans and Gynecologists, and the

Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants (“Medical Groups”) and by Alliance for Catholic

Healthcare (“Alliance”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) & (b). Both

Plaintiffs and Defendants oppose the motions to intervene. The Court finds that this matter is

appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See N.D.

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for December 9, 2005 is VACATED. Having

carefully considered the parties’ arguments and relevant legal authority, the Court hereby

DENIES the Medical Groups’ and the Alliance’s motions to intervene. 

BACKGROUND

In this action, Plaintiffs, the State of California and the California Superintendent of

Public Instruction, filed this action challenging the constitutionality of section 508(d) of the

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2005 (the “Weldon Amendment”). (Complaint, ¶ 12.) The Weldon

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 64 Filed 11/17/05 Page 1 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Amendment prohibits any federal funds from being made available to a state or local

government “if such ... government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to

discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide

coverage of, or refer for abortions.” (Id.) The Weldon Amendment does not contain an explicit

exception for situations in which an emergency abortion is needed to protect the health or life of

a woman. Plaintiffs thus allege that the Weldon Amendment conflicts with California’s

statutory scheme which requires health care facilities which provide emergency services to

provide medically necessary emergency abortions. On this basis, Plaintiffs seek to invalidate

the Weldon Amendment. 

The Medical Groups are non-profit membership associations of health care professionals

whose members are opposed to and refuse to provide or refer for abortions. However, their

members “do not object to providing emergency services and care in circumstances involving

cases of ‘emergency medical conditions,’ as that term is defined in Cal. Health & Safety Code §

1317.1, or in cases of truly ‘medically necessary abortions,’ as that term is defined in, for

example, Cal. Penal Code § 187(b)(2).” (Medical Groups Mot. at 7.) The Alliance is a nonprofit association of religiously-affiliated health care providers who, because of their religious

beliefs, do not provide abortion services. According to the Alliance, “Catholic heathcare

institutions may not, under any circumstances, provide abortion services or materially cooperate

in any medical procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before

viability.” (Alliance Mot. at 5.)

DISCUSSION

A. Intervention as of Right.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), an applicant seeking to intervene in a

pending lawsuit “as of right” must demonstrate that: “(1) it has a significant protectable interest

relating to the property or transaction that is the subject matter of the action; (2) the disposition

of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect its

interest; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the existing parties may not adequately represent

the applicant’s interest.” United States v. City of Los Angeles, 288 F.3d 391, 397 (9th Cir. 2002)

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 64 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

(internal citations omitted). An applicant must satisfy all four of these requirements. Arakaki v.

Cayetano, 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003).

In evaluating these requirements, courts “are guided primarily by practical and equitable

considerations.” Donnelly v. Glickman, 159 F.3d 405, 409 (9th Cir. 1998). Courts generally

construe conflicts in favor of intervention. United States ex rel. McGough v. Covington Techs.

Co., 967 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1992). “By allowing parties with a practical interest in the

outcome of a particular case to intervene, we often prevent or simplify future litigation

involving related issues; at the same time, we allow an additional interested party to express its

views before the court.” Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1496

n.8 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

1. Significant Protectable Interests.

“The requirement of a significantly protectable interest is generally satisfied when the

‘interest is protectable under some law, and ... there is a relationship between the protected

interest and the claims at issue.’” Arakaki, 324 F.3d at 1084 (quoting Sierra Club v. United

States EPA, 995 F.2d 1478, 1484 (9th Cir. 1993)). The “relationship” requirement is generally

satisfied “only if the resolution of the plaintiff’s claims will actually affect the applicant.” Id.

(quoting Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 410). To demonstrate a significant protectable interest, the

proposed intervenor must demonstrate that the “relief sought by the plaintiffs will have direct,

immediate, and harmful effects upon [the proposed-intervenors’] legally protectable interests.” 

Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.2d 810, 818 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting

Forest Conservation Council v. United States Forest Serv., 66 F.3d 1489, 1494 (9th Cir. 1995)).

a. The Medical Groups.

Here, the Medical Groups do not object to providing medically necessary abortions, but

argue that California may construe “medically necessary emergency abortions” too broadly to

cover all post-viability abortions. (Medical Groups Mot. at 7.) In essence, they seek to have the

court clarify the meaning of the terms “medical emergencies” under California law so as to

preserve their members’ right not to participate in therapeutic abortions. (Id. at 13.) As

Defendants note, the Medical Groups’ asserted interest does not turn on the constitutionality of

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 64 Filed 11/17/05 Page 3 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

the Weldon Amendment, but rather, on having this Court address California’s interpretation of

its own law. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Medical Groups have not demonstrated

that the resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims in this matter will actually affect their asserted interest.

b. The Alliance.

The Alliance does object to providing medically necessary abortions. They take issue

with Plaintiffs’ contention that California law requires health care facilities to provide abortions

in medical emergencies, without exception, and that the State has the discretion to take action

against heath care providers who refuse to provide abortion-related services in emergency

situtations. (Alliance’s Mot. at 4.) The Alliance argues that if this Court declares the Weldon

Amendment unconstitutional, their “members would be subjected to invidious government

discrimination, based on the Alliance’s members’ choice not to participate in the provision of

abortions as a matter of religiously-formed conscious,” and thus their interests will be negatively

impacted. (Id. at 6, 10.) The Court concludes that the Alliance has not demonstrated the relief

sought by Plaintiffs will have direct, immediate, and harmful effects upon their asserted legally

protectable interests. 

The California laws requiring health care facilities to provide abortions in medical

emergencies were enacted years before the Weldon Amendment, and the outcome of this

lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of the Weldon Amendment does not have a direct legal

impact on the existence of these California laws. Even if the Weldon Amendment is upheld as

constitutional, the State could still chose to enforce its laws if a woman is denied a medically

necessary emergency abortion, albeit at the risk of losing federal funding. Tellingly, as

Defendants point out, the Alliance does not show that California has ever enforced its laws

regarding medically necessary emergency abortions against any of its members, despite the fact

that California Health and Safety Code § 1317 (one of the California provisions Plaintiffs

contend are affected by the Weldon Amendment) was enacted almost twenty years ago. 

(Defendants’ Opp. to Alliance Mot. at 4.) Moreover, California would have no basis to

contemplate such enforcement actions unless and until a pregnant woman requires an abortion,

on an emergency basis, to protect herself against loss of life, or serious injury or illness, and an

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 64 Filed 11/17/05 Page 4 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Alliance member’s facility equipped to provide emergency abortion services, is asked to provide

such services, but refuses to do so. The Court thus concludes that the Alliance’s interest is too

attenuated and that they have not demonstrated that the resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims in this

matter will actually affect their asserted interest.

2. The Disposition of this Action Will Not Impair or Impede the ProposedIntervenors’ Ability to Protect Their Interests.

Alternatively, even if assuming arguendo that the proposed intervenors sufficiently

demonstrate the requisite relationship between their interests and the claims at issue, the Court

concludes that both groups of proposed intervenors fail to demonstrate that the disposition of

this action will impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. The Ninth Circuit

approaches the “impair or impede” requirement pragmatically: “[i]f an absentee would be

substantially affected in a practical sense by the determination made in an action, he should, as a

general rule, be entitled to intervene.” Berg, 268 F.3d at 822 (quoting Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 24 advisory committee’s notes). 

Plaintiffs’ challenge the Weldon Amendment’s threatened loss of federal funds to

California if it chooses to enforce its laws regarding medical necessary emergency abortions. 

The interests of the proposed intervenors are one step removed from the dispute between the

California and the federal government. First, as discussed above, the proposed intervenors

interests are not at risk until a woman seeks a medically necessary emergency abortion from one

of their members who then refuses to provide the abortion. Then California would need to

decide to enforce its laws protecting the rights of women to obtain medically necessary

emergency abortion against the proposed intervenors’ member. Even if this Court finds the

Weldon Amendment constitutional, California may still chose to risk a loss of funds and enforce

its laws. As a practical matter, the Court finds that the subject matter of this suit is too removed

from the interests of the proposed intervenors and that therefore, the disposition of this action

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 64 Filed 11/17/05 Page 5 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Because the Court concludes that the Medical Groups and the Alliance have not

demonstrated either a significant protectable interest or that the disposition of this action may

impair or impede such interest, the Court need not address whether the applications to

intervene are timely or if the existing parties adequately represent the proposed intervenors’

interests.

2

 The Alliance cites Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1108 (9th

Cir. 2002) for the proposition that applicants seeking to intervene are not required to

demonstrate an independent jurisdictional basis. Its reliance is misplaced. In Kootenai

Tribe, the court required the proposed intervenors to demonstrate an independent

jurisdictional grounds for their appeal. Id. at 1109. Because proposed intervenor only sought

to bring an appeal, the court did not address whether proposed intervenors would need to

demonstrate an independent jurisdictional basis to intervene at the trial level.

6

will not impair or impede their ability to protect their interests. Accordingly, the Court denies

the Medical Groups’ and the Alliance’s motions to intervene as of right.1

B. Permissive Intervention.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), “[a]n applicant who seeks permissive

intervention must prove that it meets three threshold requirements: (1) it shares a common

question of law or fact with the main action; (2) its motion is timely; and (3) the court has an

independent basis for jurisdiction over the applicant’s claims.” Donnelly, 159 F.3d at 412; see

also Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106, 1117 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Permissive intervention to

litigate a claim on the merits under Rule 24(b) requires ... an independent ground for

jurisdiction.”) (citation omitted). Both Plaintiffs and Defendants argue that the proposed

intervenors failed to demonstrate the third requirement. The Medical Groups do not address this

point in their reply brief, and the Alliance merely argues that it is not required to demonstrate an

independent basis for jurisdiction.2 Because neither the Medical Groups nor the Alliance have

demonstrated the court has an independent basis for jurisdiction over its claims, the court denies

both of their motions for permissive intervention.

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 64 Filed 11/17/05 Page 6 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Medical Groups’ and the Alliance’s motions to

intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a) or (b). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 64 Filed 11/17/05 Page 7 of 7