Lawall
Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona v. Lawall
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Tallman, J.
Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona and its corporate chapter, Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona, Inc., and David L. Child, M.D., (collectively “Planned Parenthood”) challenge the facial validity of Arizona’s parental consent abortion statute. We must decide whether the current incarnation of the statute’s judicial bypass provision satisfies two constitutionally recognized rights of privacy — the right to make fundamental life decisions and the right to avoid disclosure of personal information. We hold that it does.
The district court denied Planned Parenthood’s request for a declaratory judgment and for a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of the statute, holding *785 that the judicial bypass provision satisfies the Supreme Court’s requirement of anonymity, does not place an undue burden on a young woman’s freedom to terminate her pregnancy, and does not compromise her right to informational privacy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
I
The State of Arizona repeatedly has attempted to enact a parental consent abortion statute. Arizona’s 1989 version of the statute was first held unconstitutional by the- United…
Dissenting Opinion
Ferguson, J.
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority ignores the breadth of the exception in the Arizona confidentiality provision and upholds a facially invalid statute. In doing so, the majority has permitted the State of Arizona to unduly burden a young woman’s right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy. Simply put, the Supreme Court has mandated that “Big Brother” has no business snooping around this intensely private, constitutional right. Although the ramifications of today’s holding *791 are widespread, we will not see most of them because this statute and others like it will prevent numerous young women from exercising their constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.
A. Right to Choose
The Supreme Court has long respected a female minor’s constitutional right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 642 , 99 S.Ct. 3035 , 61 L.Ed.2d 797 (1979) (plurality opinion) (hereinafter “Bellotti II”). In recognizing this right, however, the Court has noted the unique circumstances facing a minor in this situation. Id. One of these circumstances is the interest of the State in encouraging parental involvement in this important decision. Id. at 639 , 99…