Missouri
State down to 1 abortion clinic amid legal battle
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - Missouri is down to one clinic providing abortions Wednesday, after the only other clinic in the state that performs the procedure failed to adhere to new state requirements.
Federal appeals court judges ruled last month that Missouri can enforce a requirement that doctors must have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals before they can perform abortions. The judges issued a mandate Monday for that rule to officially take effect.
The Columbia Planned Parenthood clinic was unable to secure physician privileges to comply with the requirement, so it cancelled abortions scheduled for Wednesday, which would have been the first since the mandate was issued, Planned Parenthood Great Plains spokeswoman Emily Miller said. The clinic continues to provide other health care services.
"We are unable to provide abortion services now, so we've been working with patients who were on the schedule for today for abortion appointments to let them know what their alternatives are," Miller said.
Women seeking abortions can go to Planned Parenthood's St. Louis clinic - now the only facility in Missouri where abortions can be performed - or travel to neighboring states, she said.
Planned Parenthood attorneys had asked U.S. Western District Court Judge Brian Wimes to temporarily exempt the Columbia clinic from the requirement before Wednesday. Wimes hasn't yet ruled on that request.
If Wimes does decide to grant a temporary restraining order on the law, abortions could resume in at the clinic.
Planned Parenthood affiliates with Missouri health centers filed the underlying lawsuit to block state requirements on admitting privileges and mandates that clinics meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 struck down similar rules in Texas.
U.S District Judge Howard Sachs in May 2017 issued a temporary restraining order to block the admitting privileges rule. But his action was undone in September by judges on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who argued Sachs didn't do enough to weigh the cost benefits of Missouri's rules and sent the case back to the lower court.
The underlying challenge to the Missouri abortion regulations is still pending.
Tennessee
Media asks high court to boost press protection
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - A group of Tennessee publishers and broadcasters is asking the state Supreme Court to overturn precedent and strengthen protections for the press.
The request comes in a defamation case against Nashville television reporter Phil Williams. At issue is whether accurately reporting on a court case protects Williams from prosecution.
In 2016, Davidson County District Attorney Glenn Funk sued Williams and WTVF-TV station owner Scripps Media for more than $200 million over Williams' reporting on a case in which Funk was accused of soliciting bribes.
Funk wants the Tennessee Supreme Court to rule that the accuracy of the reporting does not matter if a reporter's motives are found to be malicious. Funk's attorneys point to lawsuits going back to the 1800s in which Tennessee courts have taken into account whether "express malice" - defined as ill will or spite - was a component of the reporting.
Funk wants Williams to hand over all the information he gathered and produced in reporting his stories so Funk can try to prove Williams acted out of malice. The case has been stalled over questions of what information Williams is required to provide.
The trial court judge earlier ordered Williams to hand over documents to the district attorney, but the state Court of Appeals overturned that decision last November.
In court pleadings, Williams' attorneys say he is protected by Tennessee's fair report privilege, which generally protects fair and accurate reporting on public proceedings like lawsuits.
On Thursday, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear arguments over how it should interpret the fair report privilege as well as Tennessee's shield law, which protects journalists from having to divulge their sources in many cases.
The Associated Press and other media with operations in Tennessee have filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Tennessee precedent cited by Funk is outdated and runs afoul of U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the First Amendment.
They also argue that considering malice is illogical because it could treat two reports of identical content differently based on the mindset of the reporter. The brief urges the Tennessee Supreme Court to overturn precedent and rule that malice has no bearing on a claim of fair report privilege.
Funk's attorneys, in their pleadings, ask the court to follow "more than 100 years of Tennessee Supreme Court precedent." They cite a case from 1871 in which the court stated "a bona fide report of the proceedings in a court of justice, in the absence of express malice, is not libel."
Georgia
Judge rules man's ricin possession didn't break law
ATLANTA (AP) - The federal case against a white supremacist jailed for 20 months after exposing himself to ricin has fallen apart. Prosecutors blamed "a technical error" by Congress, which didn't include the deadly material in its list of illegal biological toxins.
U.S. District Court Judge Richard Story dismissed the possession charge against William Christopher Gibbs and ordered his immediate release on Sept. 21.
The Gainesville Times first reported on the judge's order, which said Gibbs might be charged under some other law, but "cannot be convicted under this one." Gibbs was 27 when he drove to a hospital in February 2017 and said he was exposed to ricin, which is found in castor beans and can be deadly when purified.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Gibbs associated with the Church of Creativity movement.
Virginia
Dulles facial recognition tech nabs 3 impostors in 40 days
STERLING, Va. (AP) - New facial recognition technology has identified three impostors at Washington Dulles International Airport.
Citing a U.S. Customs and Border Protection release, The Washington Post reports a woman arriving on a Monday flight from Accra, Ghana, presented a U.S. passport, but the facial recognition technology reported a mismatch. A secondary inspection and biometric examination identified her as a 26-year-old citizen of Cameroon, not the United States.
The release says the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority partnered with CBP to use biometric entry and exit technology using facial comparison to bolster security and efficiency for international travelers.
Officers at Dulles previously intercepted a Congolese man using a French passport Aug. 22 and a Ghanaian woman using a U.S. passport Sept. 8.
Posing as another person when entering the United States violates immigration law.
Published: Thu, Oct 04, 2018
