Refining Permissible Abortion Regulations: Mandatory In-Person, Informed-Consent Meetings Held Constitutional, but Restriction on Number of Petitions by Minors for Judicial By-Pass of Parental-Consent Requirement Overturned - Cincinnati Women's Services, Inc. V. Taft1

By Fink, Daniel K. | American Journal of Law & Medicine, January 1, 2007 | Go to article overview

Refining Permissible Abortion Regulations: Mandatory In-Person, Informed-Consent Meetings Held Constitutional, but Restriction on Number of Petitions by Minors for Judicial By-Pass of Parental-Consent Requirement Overturned - Cincinnati Women's Services, Inc. V. Taft1


Fink, Daniel K., American Journal of Law & Medicine


Refining Permissible Abortion Regulations: Mandatory In-Person, Informed-Consent Meetings Held Constitutional, but Restriction on Number of Petitions by Minors for Judicial By-Pass of Parental-Consent Requirement Overturned - Cincinnati Women's Services, Inc. v. Taft1 - The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that a provision of Ohio's abortion statute limiting minors to only one petition for judicial bypass of the parental-consent requirement for an abortion was an unconstitutional undue burden, but upheld a provision requiring an in-person meeting with a physician at least twenty-four hours prior to receiving the abortion.2

Prior to 1998, Ohio law required that minor women receive the informed consent of a parent or guardian before receiving an abortion.3 The law, however, allowed minors to petition a juvenile court for a judicial bypass of the parental-consent requirement so that the court could decide whether the minor was "sufficiently mature and well enough informed to intelligently decide whether to have an abortion" or whether notification of her parents was not in her best interest.4 The law did not impose any limitations on the number of times a minor could petition a court for such a bypass.5

Additionally, Ohio law mandated that women seeking an abortion receive information about the procedure from a physician at least twenty-four hours prior to the abortion.6 The informed-consent provision required that "a physician [inform] the pregnant woman, verbally or by other nonwritten means of communication," about the procedure.7 The Ohio Attorney General interpreted this language to mean that videotaped or audiotaped physician statements would be adequate means of imparting the necessary information to those seeking abortions.8

In 1998, the Ohio General Assembly passed Ohio House Bill 421, which amended the judicial bypass and informed-consent provisions of Ohio's abortion regulations.9 First, the new law limited a minor woman to only one judicial bypass petition during the term of each pregnancy (the "Single-Petition Rule").10 The Single-Petition Rule entitled minor women to only "one bite at the apple" when petitioning for a judicial bypass to the parental-consent requirement.11 second, the amendment required that the informed-consent meeting take place in person (the "In-Person Rule").12 This provision served to undo the previous law's permission to allow the use of recorded materials for informed-consent purposes and required those seeking abortions to make an additional trip to a physician prior to the procedure.

Cincinnati Women's Services, a healthcare provider that offers family planning services, and its medical director (hereinafter collectively "CWS"), brought a pre-enforcement facial attack against the Single-Petition and InPerson Rules, naming the Governor of Ohio and other government officials as defendants.13 CWS claimed that the provisions were "unconstitutionally vague and invalid under Supreme Court precedent."14 The Federal District Court for the District of Ohio upheld both provisions, noting that neither the Single-Petition nor the In-Person Rules created an undue burden on women seeking abortions.15 CWS appealed.16

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals began its analysis by determining that the proper standard to apply to facial challenges of abortion restrictions is the "large-fraction test" set out in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. casey.17 The large-fraction test requires a reviewing court "to determine whether a large fraction of the women 'for whom the law is a restriction' will be 'deterred from procuring an abortion as surely as if the [government] has outlawed abortion in all cases.'"18 In other words, the court must construct a fraction, the denominator of which is the number of women affected by the law, and the numerator of which is the number of those affected women who, because of the restriction, are precluded from receiving an abortion. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Refining Permissible Abortion Regulations: Mandatory In-Person, Informed-Consent Meetings Held Constitutional, but Restriction on Number of Petitions by Minors for Judicial By-Pass of Parental-Consent Requirement Overturned - Cincinnati Women's Services, Inc. V. Taft1
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.