Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. Hawley, No. 17-1996 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction enjoining provisions of Missouri Revised Statute section 197.200 (2007), which required a doctor who performs abortions at an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) to have surgical privileges at a licensed hospital in the community, and regulations issued by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, which required a number of physical design and layout provisions for facilities performing abortions.
The court held that a substantive due process challenge to the Physical Plant Regulations—governed by the "cost-benefit analysis" required by the undue burden standard—was not currently fit for judicial resolution given the paucity of evidence on how DHSS will grant waivers. Because the court lacked sufficient information to make a constitutional determination on the Physical Plant Regulations, the court remanded to the district court for further consideration. The court also held that the district court failed to apply the plain language of Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292, as revised (June 27, 2016), when it enjoined the Hospital Relationship Requirement. Therefore, the court remanded for the district court, at the very least, to weigh the state's asserted benefits against the burdens associated with the requirement.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Wollman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Abortion. The district court erred in enjoining provisions of Missouri Revised Statute Section 197.200 (2007) which require a doctor who performs abortions at a ambulatory surgery center to have surgical privileges at a licensed hospital in the community and regulations issued by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services which require a number of physical design and layout provisions for facilities performing abortions; there is not sufficient information at this point to determine how the waiver provision of the physical plant regulations operates; a substantive due process challenge to the physical plant regulations - governed by the cost-benefit analysis required by the undue burden standard - is not currently fit for judicial resolution given the paucity of evidence as to how the Department will grant waivers, and the court erred in enjoining the regulations; with respect to the hospital relationship requirement, the district court erred in enjoining the requirement and its related criminal provisions because the district court did not properly apply the plain language of Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292, as revised (June 27, 2016); on remand, the district court should, at the very least, weigh the state's asserted benefits against the burdens associated with the requirement.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.