Image Credit: Canva
The Tennessee Conservative [By Olivia Lupia] –
In an ongoing legal battle, the state of Tennessee suffered a blow in their petition to have a longstanding lawsuit dismissed which challenges the “vagueness and inadequacy” of exceptions contained in the state’s abortion laws when a three-judge panel denied the state’s request for a ruling in their favor without a trial.
The lawsuit was originally brought in 2023 by a group of Tennessee ob-gyns and women who claimed they suffered “serious medical problems” during their pregnancies and could not receive “medically necessary” abortions due to the state’s near ban on the practice.
Pro-abortion law firm Center for Reproductive Rights is representing the plaintiffs in the legal action, which was later joined by the American Medical Association.
Last October, the Attorney General’s Office argued that the Tennessee Human Life Protection Act already covered conditions which qualify for an abortion exception, but the panel stated there was a “lack of consensus and confusion among Tennessee medical providers” over what constitutes a “medically necessary abortion”.
The panel then outlined several specific pregnancy-related conditions which must be counted as exceptions, despite the AG’s insistence they are already covered under existing law.
Now, the judges have ruled that changes to the abortion law made by 2025 amendment, “do not significantly alter the status of this case.”
State attorneys had argued that the amendment made the lawsuit moot as it further clarified the exceptions as provided by the court without negating protections for the unborn. But the Chancery Court panel disagreed, writing that the plaintiffs, “have sufficiently alleged that the defects in the Medical Necessity Exception place their lives at risk in violation of their constitutional right to life.”
They concluded the lawsuit contains “sufficiently serious and credible allegations to move forward.”
In 2024, the same panel temporarily blocked the state’s medical board from disciplining doctors for performing “emergency abortions”, though it did not block criminal prosecutions of these providers, saying it did not have that authority.
And in a separate decision last week, the panel also granted plaintiffs permission to obtain internal documents from the General Assembly, the governor, and any legislative committees that “reveal the state’s interest in enforcing the amended abortion ban and medical exceptions.”
The ruling also allowed the Tennessee Department of Health to be subpoenaed for data on abortions, maternal mortality rates, and any unofficial guidance the department has issued to health providers since 2022.
In response, the state filed an emergency motion on Monday seeking permission to appeal the ruling, saying that forcing state officials to turn over these internal documents “presents a momentous separation-of-powers question- pitting the state judiciary against the other two branches- that should be decided by the appellate courts.”
Tennessee requires three-judge panels to consider challenges to state law. The panel issuing the opinion on this case is comprised of three women, Chancellor Patricia Head Moskal, Judge Sandra Donaghy, and Chancellor Kasey Culbreath.
About the Author: Olivia Lupia is a political refugee from Colorado who now calls Tennessee home. A proud follower of Christ, she views all political happenings through a Biblical lens and aims to utilize her knowledge and experience to educate and equip others. Olivia is an outspoken conservative who has run for local office, managed campaigns, and been highly involved with state & local GOPs, state legislatures, and other grassroots organizations and movements. Olivia can be reached at olivia@tennesseeconservativenews.com.
One Response
Isaiah 3:12
As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.