[JURIST] US District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction [order, PDF] on Thursday blocking provisions of a new Florida law that would cut state funding to clinics that provide abortions. Though the law was planned to take effect on Friday, Planned Parenthood [advocacy website] affiliates challenged [Reuters report] the law’s constitutionality. Hinkle found that cutting funding to certain abortion clinics would be unreasonable since such clinics provide a variety of other medical services. In response to a provision requiring additional inspections of abortion clinic patient records, Hinkle further found that abortion clinics are already subject to requirements that exceed those of standard medical facilities. Planned Parenthood affiliates praised the judge’s ruling, calling it a victory for women’s health. The Florida Department of Health and Florida Governor Rick Scott [official websites] have yet to comment on the matter.

The Florida law comes in the wake of conservative efforts to adopt new state abortion laws. Also this week a federal judge placed an injunction [JURIST report] on an Indiana law that would have banned women from seeking abortion procedures when they are based on race, sex, or the potential for or actual diagnosis of a disability in the fetus. Earlier this week the US Supreme Court ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-3 in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt [SCOTUSblog materials] that a Texas law [HB2 text] imposing certain requirements on abortion clinics and doctors creates an undue burden on access to abortion, and is therefore unconstitutional [JURIST report]. A collection of Texas abortion providers challenged provisions of HB2 requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and requiring abortion clinics to conform to state standards for ambulatory surgical centers on the grounds that such requirements violated the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey [text]. The Indiana statute contained a similar “admitting privilege” provision.