Court rejects S.C. abortion rules dispute

WASHINGTON, April 28 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday left in place a lower-court ruling that upheld South Carolina's hefty regulations on abortion clinics.

The high court action sets no precedent -- a similar case coming to the Supreme Court in the future might be handled in a different way. But the rejection allows the state regulations to continue, despite critics' complaints that they are unconstitutionally burdensome.

The regulations include making patients' records available to state officials. Though the records are to be stored in a "safe location" for 10 years, critics complained that there was no guarantee they would not be made public.

While "state law prohibits disclosure of patients' identities in some contexts," one clinic's petition told the Supreme Court, "it explicitly permits public disclosure of abortion patients' complete medical records in proceedings" involving the licensing of an abortion facility or employee.

In addition, the petition said, the regulation requires that facilities make prior contact with members of the clergy to make sure that they are "immediately available should the physician wish to refer a patient to them."

According to state officials, the petition said, "the facility must make those arrangements with clergy of two or three different denominations, at least one of which must be Protestant."

Prior to 1995, South Carolina only required licensing of facilities that performed abortions during the second trimester.

The new regulations, enacted by the Legislature that year, were called "Regulation 61-12." The regulation consisted of 37 pages of requirements for any facility that would perform five or more first trimester abortions per month, or one second trimester abortion per month.

The regulation sets fines of up to $5,000 per day for some violations.

Two state facilities -- the Greenville Women's Clinic and the Charleston Women's Medical Clinic Inc. -- and Greenville's Dr. William Lynn challenged the regulations in federal court as unconstitutional.

Lynn said he had to close his practice in two state offices because of the economic impact of trying to comply with the regulations.

A federal judge agreed with the challengers in part, finding that Regulation 61-12 placed an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion in violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

The judge said the regulation treated abortion facilities differently than other medical facilities without a rational basis for doing so.

A federal appeals court panel reversed, ruling that the regulation "serves a valid purpose in safeguarding the health of women and does not aim directly at a woman's right to make the decision to have an abortion."

The clinics and Lynn then asked the Supreme Court for review, which was first denied in 2001.

When the case was sent back to the trial court, the judge, acting under guidance from the appeals court, upheld the regulation as constitutional -- except for one provision.

The judge ruled the regulation violated patients' right to privacy by requiring that medical records with their identities be made available to state inspectors.

The plaintiffs and South Carolina both appealed that ruling.

Last September, the appeals court panel ruled 2-1 for the state, saying "we reject all of the remaining constitutional challenges."

The Greenville Clinic and Lynn then once again asked the Supreme Court for review on behalf of themselves and their patients, hoping that the dispute had become "ripe" enough for high court consideration.

In its own brief opposing review, South Carolina said in part that the privacy argument was part of the case when the Supreme Court rejected it in 2001, and therefore "is not now properly before this (Supreme) Court."

In any case, the justices rejected the case again Monday without explanation, leaving the divided appeals court ruling in place.

--

(No. 0-1235, Greenville Women's Clinic and Lynn et al vs. S.C. Commissioner et al.)