Sernovitz v. Dershaw, 633 Pa. 641

Act 47 of 1988 began as a narrow bill about substitute bail commissioners but was amended into an omnibus Judicial Code revision containing multiple substantive provisions, including a bar on wrongful-birth and wrongful-life claims codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 8305(a).
Rebecca and Samuel Sernovitz: physicians negligently misreported prenatal genetic testing; Samuel was born with familial dysautonomia; Plaintiffs sued in 2010 asserting wrongful-birth claims barred by § 8305(a).
Plaintiffs challenged Act 47’s validity under Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution, arguing (1) original purpose was altered, (2) the bill contained more than one subject (single-subject rule), and (3) it was not considered on three separate days.
Trial court sustained defendants’ preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint based on § 8305; the Superior Court reversed, finding a single-subject violation and severing § 8305 (and three other sections).
Defendants and the General Assembly sought review in the Supreme Court, which treated whether the 22-year delay in raising procedural (process) challenges precluded relief.
The Supreme Court held that even assuming a single-subject violation, the 22‑year delay made the procedural challenge stale and therefore not cognizable; it reversed the Superior Court and reinstated dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Act 47 violated Article III single-subject rule	Act 47 bundled disparate topics; § 8305 is unrelated and should be severed	The act’s provisions relate to court procedures; in any event the challenge is time-barred	Court assumed a violation for argument but declined to invalidate due to staleness; severance improper under Neiman; act stands as unit
Whether long delay bars procedural challenges (laches / stale-process)	Plaintiffs timely sued after injury; laches inapplicable because they only became aggrieved when child was born	Long, 22‑year delay and public reliance make belated process challenges untenable; laches/stale-process should preclude relief
Whether severance is an appropriate remedy for single-subject violations	Plaintiffs: sever § 8305 and leave remainder intact	Defendants & Legislature: severance improperly rewrites legislation; if invalid, act must fall as a whole	Severance rejected per Neiman; omnibus bills stand or fall as a unit; cannot pick-and-choose provisions
Whether a bright-line rule should limit timing for procedural challenges	Plaintiffs oppose; no authority supports such a judicially created cut-off	Legislature urged rule (challenge within next full regular session) to protect reliance and allow legislative cure	Court declined to adopt a bright-line rule now, leaving open future development; rejected this case on stale-process grounds instead

Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 877 A.2d 383 (Pa. 2005) (severance of minor ancillary provisions in otherwise single-subject enactment)
City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth, 838 A.2d 566 (Pa. 2003) (single-subject rule analysis and limits on severance)
Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) (omnibus bill with multiple subjects must be invalidated in full; severance improper for disparate provisions)
Stilp v. Hafer, 718 A.2d 290 (Pa. 1998) (laches may apply to belated procedural challenges to legislation)
Dansby v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp., 623 A.2d 816 (Pa. Super. 1993) (upholding § 8305 against substantive constitutional attack)
Schulz v. State, 615 N.E.2d 953 (N.Y. 1993) (reliance and destabilizing effects of delay decisive against late procedural challenges)
Cole v. State ex rel. Brown, 42 P.3d 760 (Mont. 2002) (there is a point at which procedural challenges brought many years later become untimely)