Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists
227 Ariz. 262
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Arizona statutes A.R.S. §§ 36-2152 through -2155 were enacted in 2009 and challenged as violating Arizona constitutional equal protection and privacy rights; trial court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining several provisions; court held Casey-undue burden standard applies and funds not to be given strict scrutiny under Arizona Constitution; holding: statutes constitutional; injunction vacated; remand for intervention rulings; Speaker sought intervention; various parties sought standing/intervention.
- PPAZ alleged the challenged provisions imposed burdens on privacy and equal protection in accessing abortion; trial court assumed strict scrutiny for fundamental rights under Simat but Arizona Constitution privacy rights do not extend beyond federal right; case discusses whether Arizona has a broader abortion right.
- Court declines to recognize an Arizona-specific right to abortion beyond federal rights; adopts Casey undue burden standard for evaluating abortion restrictions under Arizona Constitution; notaries, in-person counseling, physician-only surgery restrictions analyzed under undue burden test.
- Notarization provision (36-2152(A)) upheld as not an undue burden after balancing privacy interests; notaries’ confidentiality and penalties deter disclosure; standing concerns addressed but not fatal.
- Intervention issues addressed: Speaker may intervene as of right; several intervenors granted or denied intervention depending on interests; ultimately remand with directions to grant some interventions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the challenged provisions are subject to strict scrutiny under Arizona privacy | PPAZ: Simat requires strict scrutiny for abortion rights; privacy protects broader than federal. | State: Simat does not grant a state abortion-right; privacy not broader. | No; undue burden standard applied, not strict scrutiny. |
| What standard governs review of abortion regulations under Arizona Constitution | PPAZ urged strict/Casey-based approach under state constitution. | State urged Casey-style undue burden standard (federal harmony). | Undue burden standard adopted (Casey-based). |
| Whether notarization of parental consent for unemancipated minors unduly burdens privacy | PPAZ: notarization invasive; jeopardizes minor/parent privacy. | Notarization with confidentiality and penalties protects privacy; burden not undue. | Notarization not an undue burden; upheld with privacy protections. |
| Whether physician-only requirement for surgical abortions violates rights | PPAZ: RN/PA could safely perform some surgeries; restriction overly burdensome. | Casey/Mazurek allow professional licensure limits; protects health. | Upheld; physician-only requirement constitutional. |
| Whether right of refusal provisions violate rights under Arizona Const. Art. 2, §§8,13 | PPAZ: refusals infringe abortion rights or privacy. | State may decline to facilitate abortions; private conduct not state action. | Cannot succeed; state refusal provisions constitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simat Corp. v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys., 203 Ariz. 454 (2002) (limits of privacy-right-based strict scrutiny in abortion context; not broadened beyond federal rights)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (undue burden standard for abortion regulations)
- Rasmussen v. Fleming, 154 Ariz. 207 (1987) (privacy in medical decisions; state interest in health balanced with autonomy)
- Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979) (parental consent with safeguards serves permissible state interest)
- Roe v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 113 Ariz. 178 (1976) (context of abortion rights under Arizona constitution’s privacy claims)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997) (state may restrict abortion procedures to physicians for safety)
- Barrio v. San Manuel Div. Hosp., 143 Ariz. 101 (1984) ('reasonable election' standard for privacy rights; undue burden concept from Casey)