Planned Parenthood: A Case Study

In fall 2013, Jane Doe, was taken to Baptist Memorial Hospital after being sexually assaulted on the campus of the University of Mississippi. During the six-hour examination, she was asked if she was on any form of birth control, she replied “no.” The nurse then told her that there was a possibility that she was pregnant, Jane Doe asked for levonorgestrel, commonly called “Plan B.” She was subsequently told that the hospital did not carry or prescribe levonorgestrel due to their right to religious freedom. Jane Doe personally contacted Planned Parenthood who were willing to bring her levonorgestrel to the hospital, but the hospital administration refused admittance to physicians and/or practitioners who worked for Planned Parenthood. Levonorgestrel
needs to be taken as soon as possible within three days to be effective, Jane Doe was hospitalized for eight days due to the injuries she sustained during the assault and was in fact impregnated by the rapist. Baptist Memorial Hospital is the only hospital within sixty miles of the campus of University of Mississippi where the attack occurred, the University of Mississippi also has their insurance primarily contracted through Baptist Memorial.
Jane Doe brought a lawsuit against the University of Mississippi and Baptist Memorial Hospital, for malpractice and for violation of her right to privacy. The trial court in the state of Mississippi granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the Mississippi Religious Freedom Protection Act. Appeals within the state court also ruled in favor of the defendant.
The appellant will argue that her privacy rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by the hospitals refusal to allow her to take levonorgestrel to prevent a pregnancy that she had no control over due to the sexual assault. The appellee will argue that their right to religious expression under the Mississippi Freedom Protection Act allows them to deny any form of birth control, since it is against their religious beliefs. The issues on appeal are if Jane Doe’s right to privacy was violated by the actions of the University of Mississippi and Baptist Memorial Hospital and if the religious expression rights of the hospital outweigh the privacy rights of Jane Doe.
The right to privacy originates in Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court held that though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. According to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 13 (1973), the “right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.” The precedent set in Roe v. Wade should be used when deciding this case, due to Jane Doe being denied levonorgestrel, to terminate her possible
pregnancy.
The Mississippi Freedom Protection Act (HB 1523), in section 3.1(a), states that the state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a religious organization wholly or partially on the basis that such organization provides or declines to provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods or privileges.
Under the Act the hospital is allowed to deny treatment to patients if it goes against the hospitals religious belief. The appellee may also argue that they are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, that prohibits any agency department, or official of the United States or any State from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 US__(2014), the Court held that corporations are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court also concluded that providing contraceptives forces religious corporations to fund what they consider abortion, which goes against their stated religious principles, and creates a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive method of satisfying the government’s
interest.
Baptist Memorial Hospital may be protected under the Mississippi Freedom Protection Act and Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, but that does not outweigh Jane Doe’s constitutional right to privacy. Once Jane Doe was denied the emergency contraceptive, levonorgestrel, she took another route to protect herself from a pregnancy that she did not want and would have been forced into by her attacker. According to the article, patient autonomy versus religious freedom: should state legislatures require catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, in the Washington and Lee Law review volume 60, issue 3 , the six states have passed laws to make emergency contraception more available to rape victims. In Jane Doe’s case, she was admitted to the hospital for eight days, therefore, she had no way to receive the needed medication to protect herself from a pregnancy she not only did not want, but that was forced upon her by a sexual assault. Once the hospital denied prescribing her the levonorgestrel, she contacted Planned Parenthood to deliver her the correct dosage of levonorgestrel, which they were willing to do, but the hospital interfered refused the planned parenthood employee entrance and access to the patient. The interference by the hospital led to a pregnancy that could have been terminated early on, this forever changed her life, as she now battles with depression and other mental health issues.
The hospital’s rights do not outweigh Jane Doe’s rights, therefore, the ruling against Baptist Memorial Hospital should be in favor of the appellant.