7th Circuit denies Planned Parenthood’s request to re-hear abortion complications law

By Dave Andrusko

On Thursday, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc.’s petitions “for rehearing by the full court in a case alleging the complications reporting law is unconstitutionally vague,” according to Mary Anne Pazanowski of Bloomberg Law.

In so doing, the court upheld an August decision of a panel of the 7th District which overturned a permanent injunction that barred Indiana from enforcing the law which lists 25 complications that should be reported if they arose because of an abortion. Senate Enrolled Act 340 was passed by the Indiana state legislature and signed into law by Governor Eric Holcomb in 2018.

Far from “unconstitutionally vague,” SEA 340 is very specific in what must be reported. Those are

(1) Uterine perforation.
(2) Cervical laceration.
(3) Infection.
(4) Vaginal bleeding that qualifies as a Grade 2 or higher adverse event according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).
(5) Pulmonary embolism.
(6) Deep vein thrombosis.
(7) Failure to terminate the pregnancy.
(8) Incomplete abortion (retained tissue).
(9) Pelvic inflammatory disease.
(10) Missed ectopic pregnancy.
(11) Cardiac arrest.
(12) Respiratory arrest.
(13) Renal failure.
(14) Shock.
(15) Amniotic fluid embolism.
(16) Coma.
(17) Placenta previa in subsequent pregnancies.
(18) Pre-term delivery in subsequent pregnancies.
(19) Free fluid in the abdomen.
(20) Hemolytic reaction due to the administration of ABO-incompatible blood or blood products.
(21) Hypoglycemia occurring while the patient is being treated at the abortion facility.
(22) Allergic reaction to anesthesia or abortion inducing drugs.
(23) Psychological complications, including depression, suicidal ideation, anxiety, and sleeping disorders.
(24) Death.
(25) Any other adverse event as defined by criteria provided in the Food and Drug Administration Safety In-formation and Adverse Event Reporting Program.

Back in August, in upholding the statute, the three judge panel concluded, “It is understandable by persons of ordinary intelligence and not subject to arbitrary enforcement.”