TALLAHASSEE – An Administrative Ruling on Florida’s Abortion Waiting Period Law
In a notable recent development in Florida’s legal landscape concerning abortion regulations, an administrative law judge ruled that Dr. Candace Sue Cooley, an obstetrician and gynecologist, should face a $10,000 fine and a formal reprimand. This ruling stems from Cooley’s noncompliance with the state’s law mandating a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion can be performed, a law that took effect on April 25, 2022.
Background on the Case and Waiting Period Law
The case emerged from a series of 193 abortions performed by Cooley at the Center of Orlando for Women clinic within just two weeks following the enforcement of the waiting-period law. The Florida Department of Health took action after discovering these violations and filed a request to revoke Cooley’s medical license last month. This initiated proceedings at the state Division of Administrative Hearings, where Administrative Law Judge James H. Peterson III reviewed the details of the case.
In his 19-page recommended order issued Thursday, Peterson positioned that Cooley should not only be fined but also receive a reprimand, highlighting the complexities surrounding the law’s implementation.
Why Was the Law’s Effective Date Confusing?
Cooley and her clinic made reasonable efforts to ascertain the effective date of the waiting period law, reaching out to the state Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) for clarification following a critical ruling by Leon County Circuit Judge Angela Dempsey. This ruling upheld the waiting period law after a protracted legal battle that began back in 2015. However, it appears that the AHCA did not promptly communicate the law’s effective date to the clinic, leading to confusion. An official from the AHCA only informed the clinic during a routine inspection on May 11, 2022, weeks after the law had already taken effect.
Peterson pointed out that information about the implemented law wasn’t readily accessible online, and the clinic’s proactive inquiries failed to yield timely responses. The lack of immediate communication from the agency, the judge noted, contributed to the unintentional nature of the violation.
Assessment of Patient Impact
In his ruling, Judge Peterson also found it noteworthy that there was no evidence of physical harm to patients resulting from the omission of the waiting period. He stated that while some patients had changed their minds about proceeding with abortions—hypothesizing that they might have done so had the 24-hour waiting period been enforced—there was no confirmed evidence of patients suffering as a direct result of Dr. Cooley’s actions.
Department of Health’s Stance
Contrastingly, the Florida Department of Health maintained a stricter stance, asserting that Cooley had a responsibility to know about the law’s effective date. The Department’s claims highlighted a broader expectation that licensed physicians should ensure their practices align with evolving legal standards. Furthermore, they asserted that Cooley could have accessed this information through various professional resources and public databases.
Regulatory Landscape and Implications
The waiting period law, which demands that women receive information about abortions and wait at least 24 hours before undergoing the procedure, emerged from legislative actions in 2015. Following Judge Dempsey’s ruling supporting the law, the AHCA began inspecting clinics and reviewing compliance records, which resulted in multiple cases against healthcare providers like the Center of Orlando for Women.
In a separate but relevant ruling in 2023, Administrative Law Judge J. Bruce Culpepper had suggested a much lower fine of $67,550 for the clinic itself, recommending $350 for each violation. However, the AHCA chose to impose a significantly harsher penalty, imposing a $193,000 fine instead—demonstrating the stark difference in enforcement approaches between the agencies involved in regulating clinics and practicing physicians.
Next Steps in the Legal Process
The recommended order by Judge Peterson will proceed to the Department of Health and the state Board of Medicine, which will decide on the final actions regarding Dr. Cooley’s medical license. This pending outcome reflects the ongoing tensions and regulatory challenges surrounding abortion practices in Florida, encapsulating the complex interplay of legal responsibilities, patient care, and legislative actions in the state.
As Florida continues to navigate its legal framework concerning reproductive health, the implications of these cases will likely resonate throughout the medical community, further influencing how physicians engage with compliance and patient care in light of evolving laws.