In its 2-1 ruling, the federal appeals court found the medical grounds for the legislation were "nonexistent." The panel concluded the "requirement of admitting privileges cannot be taken seriously as a measure to improve women’s health."

"Opponents of abortion reveal their true objectives when they procure legislation limited to a medical procedure — abortion — that rarely produces a medical emergency," Judge Richard Posner wrote for the majority. "A number of other medical procedures are far more dangerous to the patient than abortion, yet their providers are not required to obtain admitting privileges anywhere, let alone within 30 miles of where the procedure is performed."

That opinion, Tseytlin wrote, cast "aspersions on the motivations of the Wisconsin legislature and, by extension, the people of Wisconsin."

Tseytlin argued that in challenging requirements such as Wisconsin's and Texas's admitting privileges laws, abortion providers are seeking a "novel level of judicial protection." He likened those laws to federal ones requiring licensed physicians be the ones to perform the procedure and banning partial-birth abortions.