U.S. appeals court allows abortion curbs in Texas during coronavirus outbreak

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday ruled that Texas can enforce limits on the ability of women to obtain abortions as part of the state’s policy requiring postponement of non-urgent medical procedures during the coronavirus pandemic.

A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 vote threw out a federal judge’s order issued last week that had blocked the state’s action. The appeals court had earlier temporarily put the district judge’s ruling on hold.

The appeals court action allows state officials to continue to enforce the restrictions that were part of an emergency order issued by the state’s Republican governor, Greg Abbott. The state says abortion providers are covered under a provision requiring postponement of non-urgent medical procedures as healthcare providers focus on battling COVID-19, the illness caused by the novel coronavirus.

Abortion providers that challenge the state’s order could now turn to the Supreme Court, which has a 5-4 conservative majority.

“This is not the last word. We will take every legal action necessary to fight this abuse of emergency powers,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion rights group representing clinics in the case.

Texas and other states that previously pursued abortion restrictions have sought to crack down on their availability during the pandemic, prompting a series of court battles. On Monday, the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to block a similar district court ruling that prevented the state of Ohio from banning abortion procedures.

Writing for the majority, Judge Kyle Duncan faulted Austin-based District Court Judge Lee Yeakel on several counts, saying he had “usurped the state’s authority to craft emergency health measures.”

Duncan, who was appointed to the bench by Republican President Donald Trump, concluded that the state must prevail “given the extraordinary nature of these errors, the escalating spread of COVID-19 and the state’s critical interest in protecting the public health.”

Yeakel had ruled that Paxton’s action “prevents Texas women from exercising what the Supreme Court has declared is their fundamental constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus is viable.”

Abortion providers including Whole Woman’s Health and Planned Parenthood sued to block the Texas policy after clinics said they were forced to cancel hundreds of appointments for abortions across the state. They note that abortions are time-sensitive, with Texas banning abortions 20 weeks after fertilization.

The restrictions violate the right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the abortion providers argued.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley. Additional reporting by Nate Raymond.; Editing by Chris Reese and Bill Berkrot)

Chicago police finalize tighter ‘use of force’ rules

FILE PHOTO: Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson arrives at a news conference in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., on September 21, 2016. REUTERS/Jim Young/File Photo

By Chris Kenning

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Chicago Police on Wednesday finalized stricter limits on when officers can use firearms and other force, the latest attempt to reform a department roiled by misconduct and criticism in the wake of a high-profile 2014 shooting of a black teen by a white officer.

Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said the use-of-force policy changes spell out more clearly when it is considered reasonable and necessary, and include new prohibitions on force that is discriminatory or employed as punishment.

Changes also bar officers from shooting at a fleeing suspect unless the person presents an imminent threat, and require officers to use de-escalation techniques. The definition of deadly force was expanded to include chokeholds and striking a subject’s head with an impact weapon.

Experts said the changes, the first to Chicago’s policies since 2002, marks a shift in thinking about force already adopted in cities such as Seattle and Baltimore.

“This policy at the end of the day will save lives and the careers of officers,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based Police Executive Research Forum.

Finalized after months of discussion and revisions, the new rules – which also affect use of Tasers, chemical spray and canines – will start in autumn, after officer training. Johnson said they are meant to address police safety and civil rights concerns.

“I know there will be some who think these policies are too restrictive for officers to do their jobs, and some will think it will not be restrictive enough,” he told a news conference.

Some advocates for reform called it a victory and said it could help rebuild public trust. But Kevin Graham, president of Chicago’s police union, disputed in a statement that excessive force was a widespread problem or that policies needed updating.

The tightened rules come as Mayor Rahm Emanuel attempts to reform the police department.

The U.S. Department of Justice launched an investigation into Chicago Police Department practices in the wake of the 2014 incident in which black teenager Laquan McDonald was shot to death by a white officer. A video of the shooting, released in 2015, sparked days of protests.

It was one of many high-profile incidents that thrust Chicago and other U.S. cities into a national debate over the use of excessive force by police against minorities.

In January, the federal investigation found that Chicago police routinely violated the civil rights of people and cited excessive force, including cases of officers shooting at fleeing suspects and using Tasers on children. It also found racially discriminatory conduct and a “code of silence” to thwart investigations into police misconduct.

Police said the new rules apply a more restrictive justification for deadly force than required by state law.

(Editing by Matthew Lewis)