Texas Medical Providers Performing Abortion Services v. Lakey
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 548
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- TMPPAS sued the Texas State Health Services Commissioner and Texas Medical Board executives under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief over HB 15 (2011), an informed-consent measure for abortion.
- HB 15 amended the 2003 WRKA to require: (i) sonogram display, (ii) audible fetal heartbeat, (iii) explanations of results, and (iv) a 24-hour waiting period in most cases.
- Women may opt out of viewing or hearing the disclosures, with limited exception-based certifications for certain situations.
- Physicians must retain a copy of the required consent form for about seven years and provide post-abortion paternity and child-support information.
- District court preliminarily enjoined the speech-disclosure provisions as unconstitutional compelled speech and voided vagueness challenges; the State appealed seeking to lift the injunction.
- This panel vacates the district court’s injunction and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HB 15’s disclosures burden the woman’s right to abortion under the First Amendment | Appellees: compelled speech violates rights; the disclosures are ideological. | Texas: disclosures are truthful, relevant medical information within state regulation of medical practice. | No, disclosures permissible under Casey/Gonzales framework. |
| Whether HB 15 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to penalties and enforcement | Appellees: vagueness invalidates provisions (a)–(c) and (e). | Texas: clear statutory structure with opt-outs; vagueness avoided by harmonizing sections. | No substantial likelihood of vagueness; provisions are sufficiently definite. |
| Whether the conflict between sections governing disclosures and patient opt-outs creates impermissible uncertainty | Appellees: sections conflict, creating enforcement ambiguity. | Statute’s structure permits a physician to comply while patient opts out; not unconstitutionally vague. | No, proper reading harmonizes sections; no conflict invalidation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa., 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (upheld informed-consent disclosures; allowed state regulation in medicine)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) (state may regulate medical practice to inform; respects life interest)
- Planned Parenthood Minn. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (2008) (upheld informed-consent disclosure; permissible under medical-regulation framework)
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (no compelled speech when expressing a state message as part of regulation)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (speech doctrine and regulation; general principle of speech in regulatory context)