Abstract：
Court Decision: 376 Federal Reporter, 3d Series 908; 2004 July 16 (date of decision). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court decision and held that Idaho\'s parental consent to abortion law was unconstitutional because it did not include a constitutionally valid medical emergency provision. Idaho\'s parental consent law contained an exception which allowed a minor to obtain an abortion without parental consent or a court order if the minor had a sudden, unexpected, and abnormal medical condition which required an immediate abortion to save her life or prevent serious risk of permanent, substantial injury. The court first rejected the state\'s argument that \"sudden and unexpected\" referred to the moment of diagnosis because the words referred to a physical condition (not a diagnosis), the word \"diagnosis\" did not appear in the statute, and every diagnosis could be considered sudden and unexpected. The court also noted that even a normal pregnancy could trigger a need for an immediate abortion in some or most women. Moreover, the court found that the onset of the underlying condition of many medical problems is often different from the time of diagnosis. The court declined to disregard the words \"sudden,\" \"unexpected,\" and \"abnormal\" because the words were pivotal to the meaning of the statute and held that the plain meaning of the medical emergency restriction was unconstitutionally narrow and interfered with a woman\'s right to undergo an abortion if her health was threatened by continuing her pregnancy. Moreover, the court held that the state\'s reading of the statute was neither \"fairly possible\" nor \"readily apparent.\" The court also held that the emergency medical provision was unconstitutional because the time period in which a decision could be rendered for a judicial bypass was open-ended, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal was unspecified, and the timeframe for the Idaho appellate process was indeterminate. Accordingly, there was no way an Idaho physician could be reasonably certain that an emergency abortion must be performed. Furthermore, the court did not find a greater interest in involving a pregnant minor\'s family in an emergency abortion than in any other medical emergency requiring immediate treatment and saw no reason for singling out physicians in the former situation to criminal liability. Finally, the court held that the offending provisions could not be severed from the law because the unconstitutional portion of the law was indispensable to its operation as the Legislature intended. The remainder of the law could not stand on its own because any parental consent statute must have a medical emergency exception.
摘要：
法院判决：376联邦记者，3d系列908；2004年7月16日（决定日期）。美国第九巡回上诉法院推翻了下级法院的裁决，并认为爱达荷州父母对堕胎法的同意是违宪的，因为它不包括宪法有效的医疗紧急条款。爱达荷州的父母同意法包含一个例外，允许未成年人在没有父母同意或法院命令的情况下获得堕胎，出乎意料的,和异常的医疗状况，需要立即堕胎以挽救她的生命或防止永久的严重风险，重大伤害。法院首先驳回了该州的论点，即“突然和意外”指的是诊断时刻，因为这些词指的是身体状况（不是诊断），“诊断”一词没有出现在法规中，每一次诊断都可能被认为是突然和意外的。法院还指出，即使是正常的怀孕也可能导致某些或大多数妇女需要立即堕胎。此外，法院发现，许多医疗问题的潜在状况的发生通常与诊断时间不同。法院拒绝无视“突然，\"\"出乎意料,\”和\“异常\”，因为这些词对法规的含义至关重要，并认为医疗紧急限制的普通含义在宪法上是狭窄的，并且如果妇女的健康受到威胁，则干扰了妇女进行堕胎的权利。继续怀孕。此外，法院认为，该州对该法规的阅读既不“相当可能”，也不明显。法院还认为，紧急医疗条款违宪，因为可以做出司法绕行决定的时间段是无限期的，提交上诉通知的截止日期未指定，爱达荷州上诉程序的时间表是不确定的。因此，爱达荷州的医生不可能合理地确定必须进行紧急堕胎。此外，法院没有发现让怀孕未成年人的家庭参与紧急堕胎比任何其他需要立即治疗的医疗紧急情况更有兴趣，也没有理由在前一种情况下单挑医生承担刑事责任。最后,法院认为，违法条款不能从法律中分离出来，因为法律的违宪部分对于立法机关的运作是不可或缺的。法律的其余部分不能独立存在，因为任何父母同意法规都必须有医疗紧急情况例外。
