Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. 7- December 24, 2004-"Page 3 <br /> <br />Ordinance -- Abortion provider ConSidered a 'clinic' <br />Under zoning code, Clinib mu8t relocate to larger lot <br />Citation: Associates in Ob, tetrics. & 'Gynecology v. Upper Merion Township, <br />U.S. District Court for the Easte, rn Disirict of Pennsylvania, No. 03-2313 (2004) <br />PENNSYLVANIA (10/29/04)~-. Associates in Obstetrics & Gynecology. (Asso- <br />ciates) provided abortion services in the IGng o'f Prussia area. <br /> Upper Merion ToWnship a~.serted: the zoning code required' Associates to <br />be classified as a "clinic,"i whidhreqUired that it be situated on a lot of at least <br />three acres, Associates operated~ inan office building on a much smaller lot.. <br /> The township issued a cea~e'.and desist order. <br /> Associates sued, :arguing the zoning code's requirement of a three-acre lot <br />created an Undue burden on its;patients' constitutional fi*flare. <br />DECLSION: Judgment in favo~ofTownship. <br /> There was no undue burden Under the zoning laws, unless the township <br />engaged in selective enforcement. , · <br /> Undue burden cases genera!ly aPPlied only to government regulation On <br />ab6rtion providers that prohibit.ed Or obstructed ,the actual abortion services. <br />However, the township had nd Objection to Associates providing abortion <br />services on a lot of three a~res 6r more. <br /> Even assUrrfi, ng th~ evidence'.Showed increases in costs and inconvenience, <br />Associates failed to show the oi~dinance created a substantial obstacle to ob- <br />taining an abortion. The increased costs of abortion services and inconve- <br />nience of increased travel time hlleged by Associates were not enough to be <br />considered an undue burden on patients' constitutional rights. <br /> The enforcement of statute~ regulating the development of institutional <br />health services was not unconstitutiOnal if it merely had the incidental effect of <br />making it more difficult or expensive to have an abortion. Although it was <br />possible that increased costs and inconvenience could create an undue bur- <br />den, the relevant statute here:did not rise tothis level.' <br /> As long as the township did aot selectively enforce the zoning code against <br />Associates, While letting other businesses skirt the law, there was no violation <br />of AssociateS' constitutional fights.. <br />see also: Lindquist v. Buckingham Township, 106 Fed. Appx. 768 (2004).' <br />see also: Eichenlaub v. ToWnship of Indiana, 385 E3d 274 (2004). <br /> <br /> · , . ....... .~: ...- <br /> <br />2004 Gumlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction s. prohibited. For more information please call ,'.617) 542-'3048. <br /> <br />89 <br /> <br /> <br />