For Immediate Release
Media Contact: Bob Cooper
(208) 334-4112

Date: November 22, 2004

U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Review Parental Consent Ruling

(Boise) - The Office of the Attorney General filed a petition for certiorari today asking the United States Supreme Court to review the case of Planned Parenthood v. Wasden, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said.

The petition seeks review of a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that the medical emergency exception to Idaho's parental consent statute was unreasonable. As a result of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, Idaho's entire parental consent provisions were struck down as unconstitutional.

"The federal district court determined that all conditions necessitating a need for an immediate abortion to protect the minor's life and health fit within the medical emergency exception to parental consent," Attorney General Wasden said. "However, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court's findings. This appeal reflects the Attorney General's duty to defend the laws of the State of Idaho in all courts of law."

BACKGROUND

In June 2000, Planned Parenthood and Dr. Glenn H. Weyhrich filed suit to enjoin the Ada County Prosecuting Attorney and the Attorney General from enforcing Idaho's parental consent statutes.

The law requires that a minor must obtain parental consent prior to receiving an abortion, except in the case of a medical emergency. At the preliminary injunction stage, Planned Parenthood argued that the definition of medical emergency was unreasonable. Specifically, it objected to the words "sudden," "unexpected" and "abnormal" contained in the definition. Planned Parenthood argued that because the medical emergency exception was unreasonable, the entire parental consent statute should be invalidated.

The federal district court rejected these arguments, determining that the medical emergency exception was reasonable because it could be interpreted broadly enough to protect the constitutional interests of individuals seeking emergency abortions. The district court described the medical emergency definition as containing language "very similar to the language approved in Casey," a case in which the United States Supreme Court considered and upheld Pennsylvania's medical emergency provision.

Following a trial in September of 2001, the district court issued an opinion leaving most of Idaho's parental consent laws intact. Specifically, the District Court determined that all conditions necessitating a need for an immediate abortion to protect the minor's life and health fit within the medical emergency exception.

The Ninth Circuit reversed that decision, finding the exception unreasonable. The Ninth Circuit specifically found the words "sudden," "unexpected" and "abnormal" made the medical emergency provision unreasonable and that those terms could not be severed from the definition.

The Attorney General expects the Supreme Court to decide in February whether it will hear the case.

- End -

News by Year:
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003