By Brendan Pierson
(Reuters) - The medical emergency exception in Tennessee's abortion ban is unclear, a Tennessee court has ruled, barring the state from enforcing the ban in case of certain medical conditions while a lawsuit by doctors and women who say they were denied abortions goes forward.
The preliminary order from a three-judge panel of the Tennessee Chancery Court in Davidson County late on Thursday, said that abortion must be allowed if a pregnant woman's water breaks or her cervix dilates before a fetus is viable, or if the fetus has a fatal diagnosis that threatens the mother's health.
It barred the state from disciplining the plaintiff doctors for performing abortions under those circumstances.
The state had agreed that those conditions should fall under the medical exception for purposes of the preliminary order, according to the court.
The court declined to issue a broader order, sought by the plaintiffs, allowing abortion in any case where it was necessary in a doctor's good faith medical judgment.
Tennessee bans nearly all abortions at all stages of pregnancy, with a narrow exception to prevent the mother's death or "serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."
"This ruling is a win for pregnant patients in Tennessee and is vindication for the brave women in this case, who were denied or delayed in getting medically necessary abortions," Linda Goldstein of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the plaintiffs, said in an email.
Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, a Republican, said in a statement that the state's abortion ban "allows pregnant women to receive all necessary care to address serious health risks" and that the court's "limited" order "mirrors that understanding."
The court denied the state's motion to dismiss the case, meaning the plaintiffs will be able to continue their challenge to the law and seek a final order.
The lawsuit was filed by seven women in September 2023. They alleged that they had all been denied medically necessary abortions because the medical exception in the state's ban was too vague.
The court on Thursday found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that the medical exception was unclear and that it violated their right to life under the state constitution.