Armstrong

Armstrong v. Mazurek

Good Law
94 F.3d 566·1996 WL 481496
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 27, 1996No. 95-35962California1,199 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

James H. Armstrong, M.D., Susan Cahill and others appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Chapter 321 of the 1995 Montana Session Laws, passed as House Bill No. 442 (HB 442), a bill restricting the performance of abortions to licensed physicians. Appellants are licensed physicians or, in the ease of Cahill, a physician’s assistant, who are engaged in providing *567 health care including abortions. Cahill is the only physician’s assistant in Montana who performs abortions, which she has done in the past under the supervision of a medical doctor and as approved by the Montana State Board of Medical Examiners.

Appellants ultimately seek a permanent injunction against enforcement of Chapter 321, on the ground that the purpose and effect of the statute is to present a “substantial obstacle” to a woman’s obtaining an abortion, within the meaning of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 877 , 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2820-21 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992). They also seek to invalidate the statute as a bill of attainder directed at Cahill.

The matter presently before us, however, is the district court’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.