Cincinnati Women’s Services, Inc. v. Taf

468 F.3d 361 (6th Cir. 2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 1998, Ohio passed new abortion laws. Prior law did not restrict upon the number of times a minor woman could petition for a judicial bypass of the prior parental-notification rule. The new law included the Single-Petition Rule, which limits to once per pregnancy the number of times a minor may seek a judicial bypass in lieu of parental consent. The Single-Petition Rule provides that 'no juvenile court shall have jurisdiction to rehear a petition concerning the same pregnancy once a juvenile court has granted or denied the petition.' The 1998 amendment also requires women seeking abortions to attend an in-person meeting with a physician for informed-consent purposes. The district court found that the In-Person Rule will have the practical effect of requiring all of P's own clients to come to its premises twice, once for the informed-consent meeting with a physician affiliated with P, and a second time for the procedure. P currently excuses approximately 5 to 10 percent of its patients from its normal two-visit protocol because of the distance of their residencies from the clinic, their lack of resources, or because of interference from an abusive partner. P filed a pre-enforcement facial attack against two of the Act's provisions. With respect to the Single-Petition Rule, the district court reasoned that Supreme Court precedent does not 'require the state to afford a minor virtually unlimited opportunities to petition for a bypass.' The district court also held that the Single-Petition Rule 'does not impose any undue burden even in the pre-viability context.' The court upheld the In-Person Rule because it 'does not create a substantial obstacle for women seeking abortions.' It held that a 'delay of up to two weeks does not impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions.' P appealed.