Ukraine Agreement: 'Propaganda' and Low Expectations? (Francis A. Boyle)

Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor  at the University of Illinois College of Law. His books include Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press: 1999) and Tackling America’s Toughest Questions (2009).   His most recent book is United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law.  These are his remarks in response to statements by US Secretary of State John Kerry.

"Ukraine did not commit itself to constitutional reform and it was very cleverly and deviously drafted language. So no agreement upon this issue. It says nothing about Ukraine staying out of NATO; and it is not a good sign that this was not a joint [media] conference by Lavrov and Kerry.

    "Kerry’s allegations [about East Ukraine anti-Semitism] sound like propaganda to me given...all the anti-Semitic statements coming out of Kiev and the warning by the [Ukrainian Chabad Chief] Rabbi Reuven Azman of Kiev [for Jews to leave Ukraine].

    "So it does not sound to me as if Kerry is proceeding in good faith here, which is a bad sign.

    "Even if they have agreed upon what Lavrov said they agreed upon, how are they going to get the people on the ground on either side to comply?"











francis a. boyle

Texas Hospital Discriminates Against Physicians Providing Abortion Services (CRR)

The Center for Reproductive Rights issued the following:

Texas Hospital Discriminates Against Physicians Providing Abortion Services

Two high quality providers in Texas file new lawsuit after having admitting privileges revoked, forcing them to immediately stop providing abortion services

04.17.14 - (PRESS RELEASE) Two Texas physicians filed a lawsuit today against University General Hospital Dallas (UGHD) after their admitting privileges were arbitrarily and unexpectedly revoked—privileges they were forced to obtain due to HB2, the sweeping unconstitutional Texas state law currently being challenged by the Center for Reproductive Rights and other advocates on behalf of women’s health care providers in the state.


Both physicians—who are also part of the first legal challenge to HB2—were initially granted privileges at UGHD in late 2013 and early 2014 and have since been safely and legally providing abortion services at clinics within 30 miles of the hospital. A few weeks ago, both physicians received an identical letter revoking their privileges.


The letter asserts that performing abortion services constitutes “disruptive behavior,” even though the physicians provide abortion care at facilities separate and unrelated to the hospital and have never even had to admit a patient to UGHD. The letter also states that providing privileges to physicians who provide abortion services “damages UGHD’s reputation within the community.” The physicians are suing under a Texas state law that prevents hospitals from discriminating against physicians because they provide abortion care and which allows for reinstatement of privileges that are wrongfully revoked.


Said Nancy Northup, president and CEO with the Center for Reproductive Rights:

“This case shows that Texas has put the constitutional rights of its women in the hands of biased hospital administrators. As a consequence, the list of high-quality abortion providers forced to turn away patients continues to grow, while reproductive health care options for Texas women continue to shrink.
“It is the woman—not a hospital mired in political biases or politicians who presume to know better—who should decide the best reproductive health care choice for herself and her family.



The two physicians are represented by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.



The Center for Reproductive Rights is currently involved in two separate challenges to HB2:

• The first—which was filed along with other reproductive health advocates and providers in September 2013—challenges the law’s unconstitutional restrictions on medication abortion as well as the requirement that abortion providers obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals. The admitting privileges provision was initially struck down, but then took effect on October 31, 2013, after a decision by the Fifth Circuit to stay the lower court’s injunction. The results have been nothing short of devastating, leaving thousands of women without access to health care and several clinics closing their doors across the state. Just last month, the Fifth Circuit upheld both the admitting privileges requirement as applied to all clinics in the state and the restrictions on medication abortion.  The Center for Reproductive Rights has since requested the full Fifth Circuit review the constitutionality of the admitting privileges requirement.
• The second—which was filed earlier this month—seeks a court order blocking the law’s admitting privileges requirement as it applies to Whole Woman’s Health in McAllen and Reproductive Health Services in El Paso—two clinics that are among the last, if not the only, reproductive health care providers offering safe, legal abortion care in their communities.  The second lawsuit also seeks to strike down HB2’s provision that every reproductive health care facility offering abortion services meet the same building requirements as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), a provision which would leave fewer than 10 clinics in Texas and force many women to endure a roundtrip of more than a thousand miles or cross state lines to access safe and legal abortion services.

Cases: 

Planned Parenthood et al. v. Abbott

the center for reproductive rights

New Lawsuit Filed Against Hospital in Wake of Texas Abortion Law (ACLU)

The ACLU issued the following:

Admitting Privileges of Two Doctors Illegally Revoked Because They Provide Abortions
April 17, 2014


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org


AUSTIN—Today two doctors filed suit against University General Hospital in Dallas after the hospital revoked the doctors’ admitting privileges because they provide abortions on their own time, off site. This is a clear violation of the law, which prohibits hospitals from discriminating against doctors because they provide abortions.


As a medical matter, doctors who provide abortions do not need admitting privileges because abortion is an extremely safe procedure and, in the extremely rare instance of an emergency, hospitals are already required to treat patients. But a new Texas law requires abortion providers – but no other type of doctor – to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Major medical groups, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians oppose admitting privileges because they do nothing to further patient safety. Rather, they harm women by cutting off access to safe, legal abortions.


Similar laws in Alabama, Wisconsin and Mississippi have been blocked by the courts.


"Discriminating against qualified doctors simply because they provide abortions not only violates the law, it also plays right into the hands of politicians who are laser focused on ending access to abortion," said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "Major medical groups recognize that these laws don’t improve women’s safety. They’re designed to shut down clinics, plain and simple."
The two physicians are represented by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP in this action.

aclu