Once more women are not protected by the courts

The story of the Dayton, Ohio late term abortion facility of Martin Haskell continues.

The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals gave a sort of mixed ruling (this is a pdf file) on Friday in the case.

The Court found that the Permanent Restraining Order against the Ohio Department of Health in their capacity to enforce State law on the licensing of Ambulatory Surgical Facilities is not valid. But, the State may not order the Facility closed until a hearing is held.

Haskell refuses to comply with the law which requires ASF's to identify an agreement with a local hospital for transfer of patients to that hospital in the case of complications. Haskell (wh performs abortions at the Dayton facility and two others) admits to 3000 abortions a year at the facility, and he is the only "provider" who does late term abortions (after 18 to 19 weeks through 24 weeks) in Southern Ohio. Haskell had convinced a judge to give him a Temporary Restraining Order and an appeals court had awarded him a Permanent Injunction against the State's requirements for licensing or closing, and had awarded him lawyer's fees that are about $150,000.

Haskell has a written agreement with a hospital out of his immediate area, because none of the local hospitals would contract with him. That agreement was later rescinded. Haskel claims to have an agreement with a private group practice of 5 OB/Gyns who have admitting privileges at a local hospital, but he refuses to disclose who the other doctors are.

The 6th Circuit Court finds that there is no "undue burden" since the law is neutral (covers all ASF's) and Haskell should at least identify his 5 doctor's names. But, the Courts said that the State should have had a hearing so that Haskell could refuse to identify the docs again. And, the 6th says he won enough of his case to win the attorney's fees.
One of the Justices on the 6th Court panel dissented on the hearing. He said that the necessity for a hearing, since Haskell had 3 years to make his case, the law doesn't really require a hearing, and nothing new will come out of the hearing.
To me, it looks as though Haskell is hoping to stall, and maybe start the legal process all over again. (Or maybe the Powers That Be were waiting for the current US Supreme Court to be established.)
From the majority:

In sum, we reverse the district court’s decision with respect to its conclusions that the application of the transfer agreement requirement (and license requirement) to the Dayton clinic constituted an undue burden under Casey and that the Dayton-area hospitals had an unconstitutional third-party veto over the Dayton clinic’s license. We affirm the district court’s conclusion that Director Baird violated the plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights when he ordered the clinic closed before a hearing could be held on the proposed denial of the license application. We also affirm the award of attorneys’ fees and expenses.