Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest v. State, 375 P.3d 1122

Background

Alaska law historically allowed minors to consent to pregnancy‑related medical care but (until various reforms) excluded abortion; the statutory landscape was altered by legislative acts and a 2010 voter initiative (the Parental Notification Law).
The Parental Notification Law requires 48‑hour advance parental notice before a physician may perform an abortion on an unmarried, unemancipated minor under 18, with limited medical‑emergency and bypass exceptions; it also creates civil and criminal penalties and procedural verification requirements for notice.
Planned Parenthood and two Alaska physicians sued, arguing the Notification Law violates the Alaska Constitution’s privacy and equal protection clauses; sponsors intervened to defend the law.
The superior court upheld most of the law, enjoined several provisions (including criminal penalties and certain procedural burdens), and made factual findings about access, medical risks, and bypass use; both sides appealed.
The Alaska Supreme Court majority held the Notification Law violates the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection guarantee because it discriminates between similarly situated pregnant minors (those who seek abortion vs. those who seek to carry to term) without a sufficiently tailored, compelling justification; the court reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Does the Notification Law violate equal protection by treating pregnant minors seeking abortion differently from those carrying to term?	Notification discriminates against minors exercising a fundamental privacy right and lacks a compelling, narrowly tailored justification.	Parental involvement and protecting minors’ health/against abuse are compelling interests that justify different treatment; the groups are not similarly situated.	Held for plaintiff: the two groups are similarly situated for equal protection; State’s interests apply equally and the classification is under‑inclusive and fails strict scrutiny.
2. Does Planned Parenthood II preclude an equal protection challenge to a notification law?	N/A (plaintiff relied on fresh equal‑protection analysis).	State argued Planned Parenthood II endorsed parental notification and thus foreclosed equal‑protection attack.	Rejected: Planned Parenthood II addressed privacy only and did not decide equal protection for a concrete notification statute; the current law must be judged on its own record.
3. Does the Notification Law violate minors’ privacy rights under the Alaska Constitution?	The Law burdens fundamental privacy rights and is not the least restrictive means (procedural burdens, severe penalties, onerous bypass standard).	The law is a permissible, less‑restrictive alternative to parental consent and includes judicial bypass and exceptions.	Majority did not decide because equal protection disposition was dispositive; concurrence would invalidate under privacy grounds (strict scrutiny/least restrictive means).
4. Are unconstitutional provisions severable or must the entire law fall?	N/A (plaintiff sought full relief).	Sponsors/State urged severing infirm provisions to preserve core notice requirement.	Concurrence argued many provisions are so integral that the statute lacks severability and the entire law should be struck; majority remanded for entry of judgment consistent with decision and did not reach severability for the full court.

Key Cases Cited

Valley Hosp. Ass'n v. Mat‑Su Coal. for Choice, 948 P.2d 963 (Alaska 1997) (recognized Alaska's robust constitutional right to reproductive privacy)
State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs. v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, Inc., 28 P.3d 904 (Alaska 2001) (extended fundamental reproductive privacy to minors and addressed parental‑consent restrictions)
State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska (Planned Parenthood II), 171 P.3d 577 (Alaska 2007) (held parental‑consent statute unconstitutional on privacy grounds and suggested parental notification might be a less‑restrictive alternative)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (federal framework recognizing state interests in informed decisionmaking around abortion and upholding some parental‑involvement requirements under appropriate safeguards)
Lynden Transp., Inc. v. State, 532 P.2d 700 (Alaska 1975) (test for severability of statutory provisions)