LINCOLN – A Douglas County woman asked the Nebraska Supreme Court this week to override Secretary of State Bob Evnen’s decision to prevent an abortion rights amendment from appearing on the November ballot.
Carolyn LaGreca of Douglas County was named in her court filing as the founder, first director and board member of the Women’s Care Center in Omaha, which later became Bethlehem House and housed and cared for women with unwanted pregnancies.
LaGreca’s lawsuit, filed Monday, is separate from a formal complaint who sent a number of medical providers from Nebraska to Evnen on Monday.
She declined a request for comment through her attorney, who works for the nonprofit Thomas More Society. The socially conservative group opposes abortion and funded the lawsuit on her behalf, said Matthew Heffron, one of her Chicago-based attorneys.
Her legal push asks the state’s highest court to skip further steps and make a decision before Evnen must certify the state’s ballots on Sept. 13. The petition for such a so-called “original action” argues that LaGreca does not have time to wait for the normal process in district court.
Group of medical experts questions abortion bill based on ‘single subject’ rule
“Had this case been filed in district court after the Secretary of State’s August 23 decision, it would have been nearly impossible to complete the case and the inevitable court review before the September 13 deadline,” the lawsuit states.
Allie Berry of Protect Our Rights, the Group behind the popular initiative for abortion rights, called the recent legal maneuvers a distraction. She said the work appears to be “funded and driven by anti-abortion activists who are doing everything in their power to undermine the process and lay the groundwork for … a total ban on abortion.”
“The majority of Nebraskans know that these decisions are up to patients and their trusted health care providers, not politicians, and we will vote accordingly this fall,” she said. “Our action was approved by the Secretary of State, and we have followed the appropriate procedures every step of the way.”
Protect Our Rights officials said they expect administrative and legal challenges from anti-abortion activists.
The core of the argument in the lawsuit is that the abortion law change sought by Protect Our Rights seeks to do more than just enshrine in the Constitution of the State of Nebraska the right to abortion until the fetus is viable.
The lawsuit argues that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a distinction between a “fundamental right” to abortion and ensuring that that right is granted “without government interference,” as the proposed constitutional amendment explicitly states.
The motion says the language also creates a new definition of viability that could be “virtually unlimited.” Support Our Rights and other abortion rights groups argue that most medical experts set fetal viability at 22 to 24 weeks.
The lawsuit alleges that the proposed language would create “conflicting standards” for pre- and post-viability abortions by allowing exceptions for the “life” and “health” of the mother. A competing amendment supported by anti-abortion groups includes similar exceptions.
Similar to the complaint filed Monday by a group of Nebraska medical professionals with the U.S. Secretary of State’s office, the lawsuit argues that the definition of the term is being expanded by allowing a “treating health care provider” to decide whether it is feasible.
The Nebraska Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to accept the lawsuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday in a lawsuit challenging Evnen’s decision not to register felons to vote after they have completed their sentences, even though a new state law gives them the right to vote.
The “single subject” rule was the subject of another recent case before the Nebraska Supreme Court, when the court agreed that the legislature has the right to group actions under a single heading or subject. One of the justices who dissented in that case complained that other justices left room for a stricter interpretation of the single subject rule for citizen-initiated petition initiatives.
As for the doctors’ complaint, Evnen could decide to administratively remove the bill from the ballot, but that would likely trigger legal action from abortion advocates.
These groups could still sue to stop a competing ballot initiative that would constitutionally limit abortion to the first trimester and leave parliament open to pass stricter bans in the future. Both ballot initiatives are approved for the November vote on Friday, Evnen announced.
View-Image.cgi-4 View-Image.cgi-5
Get the morning’s headlines straight to your inbox
