Opponents of Arkansas’ ban on abortions after 12 weeks if a fetal heartbeat is detected argued against a crisis pregnancy counseling center’s attempt to intervene in its lawsuit filed against the state, contending in a response filed late Tuesday afternoon that the organization does not meet any of the necessary requirements for a party to legally intervene in a case.
Wynne-based Concepts of Truth filed 90 pages of evidence in support of its motion to intervene and join the state of Arkansas in the federal lawsuit earlier this month. A motion that was denied nearly two weeks ago prevented Concepts of Truth from intervening in an injunction hearing before U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright. A final decision on the group’s intervention in the case overall was not to be made until the American Civil Liberties Union filed its response, which it did Tuesday.
During a May 17 hearing, lawyers representing the ACLU of Arkansas, the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights and Little Rock abortion doctors Jerry Louis Edwards and Tom Tvedten, successfully argued for the ban to be temporarily stayed until Wright can have a full hearing in the case.
Arkansas’ law would require a woman who is at least 12 weeks pregnant and seeking an abortion to undergo an abdominal ultrasound. If a heartbeat is detected, an abortion could not legally be performed unless the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or the abortion was done to save the life of the mother, in response to a medical emergency with the mother or if the child faced a highly lethal fetal disorder.
Opponents of the law contend that 12 weeks is months before viability, which the Supreme Court has found in Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings is the point at which the state can stop the procedures.
In its filing Tuesday, the ACLU argued that Concepts of Truth did not present enough evidence to suggest that it was a uniquely interested party separate from the state.
According to court documents filed earlier this month by Concepts of Truth, the group’s central purpose is to help “protect pregnant clients’ free and informed exercise of their rights - particularly the right to maintain their relationship with the child in their womb.”
The ACLU supports Concepts of Truth filing amicus briefs throughout the trial, but unlike having the ability to intervene in a case, Concepts of Truth would not be able to orally argue its case in court, said Holly Dickson, the legal director for the ACLU of Arkansas. An amicus brief is something any interested party or expert may file during the course of a case.
“We felt that it was important that their voices be heard,” Dickson said.
The ACLU argued that Concepts of Truth’s claims of being a stakeholder in the case did not hold water, because whether the organization would be affected by the law is too speculative and its interest in the case is already adequately represented by the state. Concepts of Truth’s intervention would also delay the ACLU’s cause as the plaintiff in the case, the ACLU argued.
“Their intervening is unnecessary,” Dickson said.
Concepts of Truth had argued in its motion to intervene that it was a stakeholder in the case because it would have more clients if the ban remained law, according to the brief. The ACLU argued that Concepts of Truth could not assume that more people across Arkansas would travel to Wynne versus seeking another crisis pregnancy counseling center, even if they wanted counseling.
Information for this article was contributed by Linda Satter of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Northwest Arkansas, Pages 12 on 05/29/2013