Cincinnati Women's Services, Inc. v. Taft case brief summary
468 F.3d 361 (2006)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a women's services center and its medical director, challenged the decision entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that upheld two provisions of Ohio House Bill 421, a law enacted by the Ohio General Assembly in 1998 concerning the regulation of abortions.
FACTS:
-The center provided contraceptive services and performed pregnancy testing and abortions.
-The first of the provisions of Ohio House Bill 421 limited minors who sought a judicial bypass of the statutory parental-consent requirement to one petition per pregnancy (Single-Petition Rule).
-The second challenged provision required women who sought abortions to attend, for informed-consent purposes, an in-person meeting with a physician at least 24 hours prior to receiving the abortion (In-Person Rule).
-The center filed the pre-enforcement facial attack against the two provisions, naming the Governor of Ohio and various other government officials as defendants.
HOLDING:
The appellate court found that the Single Petition rule failed under Casey's large-fraction test, and found that it was facially unconstitutional.
ANALYSIS:
However, the Single Petition Rule was severable from the remainder of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2919.121, the statute that regulated abortion. Turning to the In-Person Rule, the court affirmed the district court's decision that upheld the Rule because it did not create a substantial obstacle for women who sought abortions.
OUTCOME: The appellate court reversed the district court's judgment that the Single-Petition Rule was constitutionally valid and concluded that the Single-Petition Rule was severable from the remainder of the statute. The court affirmed the district court's judgment that the In-Person Rule was constitutionally valid and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Also see: Abortion legal definition - http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2014/04/abortion-legal-definition.html
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
468 F.3d 361 (2006)
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a women's services center and its medical director, challenged the decision entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio that upheld two provisions of Ohio House Bill 421, a law enacted by the Ohio General Assembly in 1998 concerning the regulation of abortions.
FACTS:
-The center provided contraceptive services and performed pregnancy testing and abortions.
-The first of the provisions of Ohio House Bill 421 limited minors who sought a judicial bypass of the statutory parental-consent requirement to one petition per pregnancy (Single-Petition Rule).
-The second challenged provision required women who sought abortions to attend, for informed-consent purposes, an in-person meeting with a physician at least 24 hours prior to receiving the abortion (In-Person Rule).
-The center filed the pre-enforcement facial attack against the two provisions, naming the Governor of Ohio and various other government officials as defendants.
HOLDING:
The appellate court found that the Single Petition rule failed under Casey's large-fraction test, and found that it was facially unconstitutional.
ANALYSIS:
However, the Single Petition Rule was severable from the remainder of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2919.121, the statute that regulated abortion. Turning to the In-Person Rule, the court affirmed the district court's decision that upheld the Rule because it did not create a substantial obstacle for women who sought abortions.
OUTCOME: The appellate court reversed the district court's judgment that the Single-Petition Rule was constitutionally valid and concluded that the Single-Petition Rule was severable from the remainder of the statute. The court affirmed the district court's judgment that the In-Person Rule was constitutionally valid and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Also see: Abortion legal definition - http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2014/04/abortion-legal-definition.html
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment