State attorneys attempt to preserve legal limit on who can provide an abortion in Alaska
- Alaska Beacon
- 6 hours ago
- 4 min read
A law in place since 1970 says only licensed doctors can provide abortion care; the Alaska Supreme Court is considering whether advanced practice clinicians can provide abortions
By James Brooks
Alaska Beacon
On Wednesday, the Alaska Supreme Court heard arguments in a legal case that will determine whether or not the state of Alaska may restrict abortion care to licensed physicians.
Since 2019, attorneys representing Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky, have been challenging a state law setting out that restriction. They argue that advanced practice clinicians should be permitted to provide abortion care, even though they are not licensed physicians.
The law, enacted in 1970, has been partially suspended since 2021, which has allowed advanced practice clinicians to perform abortions. In 2024, Alaska Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, continuing the suspension.
The state of Alaska, which opposes Planned Parenthood’s interpretation of the law, appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court in hopes of restoring the law’s effectiveness.
The deciding issue may be whether strict scrutiny applies in the case. Under strict scrutiny, the government bears the burden of proving that a law is constitutional.
In 2024, Alaska Superior Court Judge Josie Garton ruled that strict scrutiny does apply, which contributed to her determination that limiting abortion services to state-licensed physicians violates the Alaska Constitution.
In written briefs to the Supreme Court this year, attorneys representing the state have argued that Garton’s ruling was mistaken; attorneys representing Planned Parenthood have argued in favor of the strict scrutiny determination.
If Garton’s decision on strict scrutiny is overturned, the rest of her decision could follow, and advanced practice clinicians would no longer be legally able to provide abortion care in Alaska.
In Alaska, abortion rights have generally been protected since 1997 by the Alaska Supreme Court’s interpretation of the state’s constitutional right to privacy.
Since then, subsequent editions of the court have repeatedly held that abortion care is health care and thus protected by the right of Alaskans to keep medical decisions private.
Attorney Laura Wolff, representing the Alaska Department of Law, argued Wednesday that the physician-only abortion law doesn’t violate the constitutional right to privacy because few people have been affected.
“The privacy clause analysis requires a significant impairment,” she told the justices. “Not a modest, not a medium, a moderate, a significant impairment, in order to even trigger the privacy clause.”
Attorney Camila Vega, arguing for Planned Parenthood, said some of the group’s clients have been able to access care more often because they no longer have to wait for a doctor to be available.
She said that it would be a mistake for the Supreme Court to require that a minimum number of patients be affected in order to violate the constitution.
“This court has never before required evidence about a threshold number of individual patients to strike down a law, and we would urge the court not to do so here,” she said. “The evidence … shows that since the injunction in this case, patients have been better able to access medication and aspiration abortion. They’ve been doing so for the last four years, and so we respectfully request that the court affirm the order.”
National and local groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Planned Parenthood. Standing Together Against Rape, an Alaska group, argued that restricting access to abortion care would harm abuse victims and survivors of sexual assault.
The national groups argued that advanced practice clinicians are able to provide safe and effective abortion care, and there’s no difference in outcomes between their care and care provided by doctors.
Planned Parenthood has also argued that even if the Alaska Constitution’s privacy amendment does not apply in this case, the abortion-doctor law would violate the constitution’s equal protection clause.
That clause states “that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights.”
Restricting abortion patients to doctor treatment alone deters them from getting treatment, Vega said.
“For example, if the state offered marriage appointments twice a week, but it said that for same-sex couples, you could only get a marriage appointment once a month, that is a clear equal protection violation,” she said.
The state argued in writing that it has a valid interest “in ensuring that these procedures ending fetal life are performed ethically, professionally, and under a uniform standard,” and because of that reason, the Alaska Legislature intended abortion to be regulated to a higher standard.
At the end of Wednesday’s arguments, Chief Justice Susan Carney said the case will be taken under consideration, with a written order to be published at a future date.
• James Brooks is a longtime Alaska reporter, having previously worked at the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, Kodiak Mirror and Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. Alaska Beacon is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
