Planned Parenthood Minnesota v. Rounds
653 F.3d 662
8th Cir.2011Background
- In 2005 South Dakota enacted HB 1166 amending the Public Health and Safety Code to expand informed-consent requirements for abortion.
- Section 7 requires 24-hour oral advisories by the physician and written advisories at least two hours before the procedure.
- Advisories include a human being advisory, relationship advisories, a suicide advisory, and a risk advisory with known medical risks.
- Planned Parenthood challenged the Act facially; the district court enjoined some provisions, and the Eighth Circuit approved en banc reconsideration.
- On remand the district court granted summary judgment upholding some provisions and striking others as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The court now affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 7's human being advisory facially valid? | Planned Parenthood argues it violates the First Amendment. | South Dakota contends it is constitutionally permissible in context. | Human being advisory upheld; facially valid. |
| Are the relationship advisories § 7(1)(c)-(d) valid? | Advisories coerce or compel ideological speech and lack clear meaning. | Statutory language conveys lawful information guiding choice. | Relationship advisories affirmed as facially valid. |
| Is the suicide advisory § 7(1)(e)(ii) truthful and non-misleading? | Advisory asserts causation, misleads, and is unsupported by science. | Advisory reflects relative risk supported by medical literature and is truthful. | Suicide advisory struck as untruthful/misleading; FDA/ACOG/APA context discussed. |
| Is the general risk advisory § 7(1)(e) valid as a disclosure of known medical risks? | It is vague and unconstitutionally burdensome. | Known risks are sufficiently defined and medical practice supports disclosure. | Risk advisory upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (undue burden and informational, truthful disclosures required)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (court recognizes state interest and deference in abortion regulation despite uncertainty)
- Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds (en banc), 530 F.3d 724 (2008) (upheld human being advisory and set standard for facial challenges)
- Wheeldon v. Madison, 374 N.W.2d 367 (1985) (common-law duty to warn and to assess material risks in medical procedures)