{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Planned Parenthood of Idaho v. Wasden.
{Author}:  ;
{Journal}: Wests Fed Rep
{Volume}: 376
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2004
暂无{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.