PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS SERVICES, CORPORATION; Peter A. Vargas, M.D.; Boulder Abortion Clinic, P.C.; Warren M. Hern, M.D.; James A. McGregor, M.D.; Michael D. Rudnick, M.D.; Aris M. Sophocles, Jr., M.D.; and Women’s Choice of Boulder Valley, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. William OWENS, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Colorado; David J. Thomas, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the First Judicial District, State of Colorado; A. William Ritter, Jr., in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Second Judicial District, State of Colorado; Glenn Davis, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Third Judicial District, State of Colorado; Jeanne Marie Smith, in her official capacity as District Attorney for the Fourth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Michael Goodbee, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Fifth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Sarah Law, in her official capacity as District Attorney for the Sixth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Wyatt Angelo, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Seventh Judicial District, State of Colorado; Stuart A. Van Meveren, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Eighth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Mark McLucas Myers, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Ninth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Gus Sandstrom, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Tenth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Edward J. Rodgers, III, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial District, State of Colorado; Robert Pastore, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Twelfth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Mark Adams, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Thirteenth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Paul R. McLimans, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Fourteenth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Ronald F. Foster, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Gary Stork, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Sixteenth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Robert S. Grant, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Seventeenth Judicial District, State of Colorado; James Peters, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Al Dominguez, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Nineteenth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Alexander M. Hunter, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial District, State of Colorado; Frank J. Daniels, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Twenty-First Judicial District, State of Colorado; Michael F. Green, in his official capacity as District Attorney for the Twenty-Second Judicial District, State of Colorado, Defendants-Appellants, Colorado Pro Life Alliance, Inc.; United Families International, Inc.; Society for Adolescent Medicine; Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics; American Medical Women’s Association; American Public Health Association, Amici Curiae.
No. 00-1385.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 17, 2002.
287 F.3d 910
Jennifer Ellen Dalven, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Reproductive Freedom Project, New York, N.Y. (Louise Melling, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Reproductive Freedom Project, New York, NY, Edward T. Ramey, Isaacson, Rosenbaum, Woods & Levy, P.C., Denver, CO, Tim Atkeson and Keri Howe, Arnold & Porter, Denver, CO, Mark Silverstein, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Colorado, Denver, CO, Kevin C. Paul, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Inc., Denver, CO, with her on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
A. Stephen Hut, Jr., Kimberly A. Parker, and Julie M. Riewe, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, DC, filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Women’s Association, and the American Public Health Association, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Before BRISCOE, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
LUCERO, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs filed suit seeking to have a Colorado statute regulating abortion declared unconstitutional and to have enforcement of that statute enjoined. The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, holding that the lack of a health exception for the parental notification requirement of the statute rendered it unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
I
The Colorado Parental Notification Act (“PNA”) was adopted as an initiative in Colorado’s general election of November 3, 1998.1 It generally requires that minors in the state of Colorado provide notice to at least one of their parents before obtaining an abortion. The legislative declaration of the act states:
The people of the state of Colorado ... declare that family life and the preservation of the traditional family unit are of vital importance to the continuation of an orderly society; that the rights of parents to rear and nurture their children during their formative years and to be involved in all decisions of importance affecting such minor children should be protected and encouraged, especially as such parental involvement relates to the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor, recognizing that the decision by any such minor to submit to an abortion may have adverse long-term consequences for her.
Performance of an abortion on an “unemancipated minor” is specifically prohibited until at least forty-eight hours after written notice is delivered to the minor’s parent, guardian, or foster parent. Id.
There are two exceptions to the PNA’s notice requirement. First, the notice requirement does not apply if the persons entitled to notice certify in writing that they have already been notified. Id.
Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the PNA on December 22, 1998.3 Named defendants originally were the governor of Colorado and one local district attorney; the suit was later expanded to include all local district attorneys in Colorado.4 One of plaintiffs’ claims was that the PNA was facially unconstitutional because it lacked an exception permitting a physician to perform an abortion without notice or a waiting period even when necessary to protect the health of the pregnant minor.5 Planned Parenthood of Rocky Mountains Servs. Corp. v. Owens, 107 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1275 (D.Colo.2000). The district court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs on this claim. Id. at 1276.
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.1999). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
II
Key to resolution of this case is our answer to this question: Does the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, require that state abortion regulations provide a health exception where such an exception is necessary to ensure that those regulations do not
A
Three cases are essential to answering the first question: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which established the current constitutional principles regarding abortion; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), which reaffirmed and refined the holdings of Roe; and Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), which is the most recent holding by the Supreme Court on the constitutional requirements for a health exception for abortion regulations.
Roe established the importance of protecting the health of pregnant women in the context of abortion regulation. One of the three central holdings of Roe is that for the stage of pregnancy subsequent to viability, a state may regulate and even proscribe abortion, “except, where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Roe, 410 U.S. at 165.
This holding was reaffirmed in Casey, where the Court stated in the clearest possible terms that abortion regulations cannot interfere with a woman’s ability to protect her own health. The Casey Court emphasized that “the essential holding of Roe forbids a State from interfering with a woman’s choice to undergo an abortion procedure if continuing her pregnancy would constitute a threat to her health.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 880. In upholding Pennsylvania’s abortion regulations, the Court found it crucial that the statute had a medical emergency exception to the application of the state regulations, and that the exception was broad enough “to assure that compliance with [the State’s] abortion regulations would not in any way pose a significant threat to the life or health of a woman.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Roe and Casey directly address only state regulation of post-viability abortions, Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-65; Casey, 505 U.S. at 879 (joint opinion of O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.), a context in which the Court has held that a state has a “compelling” interest in protecting potential life, Roe, 410 U.S. at 163. This means that pre-viability, where the state’s interest in regulation of abortion is weaker, the state would likewise have no constitutional power to infringe on the right of the pregnant woman to protect her health. In other words, at no time during the period of pregnancy may the state regulate abortion in a manner that infringes on the ability of a pregnant woman to protect her health. In Stenberg, the Court confirmed this deduction. “Since the law requires a health exception in order to validate even a postviability abortion regulation, it at a minimum requires the same in respect to previability regulation.” 530 U.S. at 930.
Stenberg also confirmed that the lack of a health exception is a sufficient ground for invalidating a state abortion statute. Id. (announcing two “independent reasons” for invalidating the state abortion law in question, one of which was that “the law lack[ed] any exception for the preservation of the ... health of the mother” (quotation omitted)); see also id. at 947 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“[T]he Nebraska statute is inconsistent with Casey because it lacks an exception for those
That the PNA regulates abortion performed for minors does not alter the constitutional requirements or mandates laid down by the Court regarding the necessity of a health exception. “Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority. Minors, as well as adults, are protected by the Constitution and possess constitutional rights.” Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 74 (1976). The State does not urge—and the Court has never ruled—that a state may constitutionally infringe on a minor’s ability to protect her health through an abortion, or that the health exception requirement either does not apply or applies differently to minors.
Thus, the current state of the law is that state abortion regulations must provide an exception for the protection of the health of pregnant women where those regulations might otherwise infringe on their ability to protect their health through an abortion.7
Although facial challenges to statutes generally require the plaintiff to show that there are no circumstances under which the law could be valid, see United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987), the standard of review for facial challenges to abortion statutes is quite different.
We have followed the majority of other circuits in holding that Casey altered the Salerno standard in the context of abortion cases, with the Casey “undue burden” test replacing the Salerno “no set of circumstances” test. See Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F.3d 1112, 1116 (10th Cir.1996). Review of state pre-viability abortion regulations generally proceeds under Casey, which prescribes a showing that the state abortion regulation operates, “in a large fraction of the cases ... as a substantial obstacle to a woman’s choice to undergo an abortion.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 895. The State concedes that the Salerno standard is inapplicable and assumes that our review should proceed under the Casey standard.
However, in Stenberg the Supreme Court departed in yet another manner from Salerno, relying neither on the Salerno “no set of circumstances” test nor the Casey “undue burden” test in striking down Nebraska’s “partial birth abortion ban” for lack of a health exception. See Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 938; see also id. at 1019 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (arguing that under the “no set of circumstances” test the Nebraska statute should not be declared facially unconstitutional). Without overruling or even citing Salerno, the Court instead held that in the absence of evidence that a health exception would “never [be] necessary to preserve the health of women,” the statute must be declared unconstitutional. Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 937-38 (quotation omitted). The district court in this case implicitly reached this conclusion as well. See Planned Parenthood, 107 F.Supp.2d at 1280 (concluding without discussing Salerno that Stenberg established a per se rule requiring a health exception). We will “follow what the Supreme Court actually did—rather than what it failed to say—and apply” the standard for reviewing abortion statutes laid out in Stenberg. Planned Parenthood v. Miller, 63 F.3d 1452, 1458 (8th Cir.1995).
Applying that standard, if we conclude that the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to the material fact that the PNA will infringe on the ability of any pregnant woman to protect her health, we must hold the statute unconstitutional. Plaintiffs need not show that all, or even most, pregnant women who will be covered by the provisions of the PNA would have the right to protect their health infringed unconstitutionally by the PNA. See Women’s Med. Prof’l Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 196 (6th Cir.1997) (“[A] post-viability abortion regulation which threatens the life or health of even a few pregnant women should be deemed unconstitutional.”).
With these preliminary matters resolved, we address whether the Colorado statute meets the appropriate constitutional requirements.
III
We first conclude that the evidence presented by the parties before the district court mandates that the PNA contain a health exception. We then reject the State’s argument that the PNA may be interpreted to contain a constitutionally ord, shows that a health exception is necessary.
A
Both parties agree that there are circumstances in which complications of a pregnancy may pose major health risks to the patient, including a threat to the patient’s life. Planned Parenthood, 107 F.Supp.2d at 1277. The parties also agree that these medical complications may require medical treatment during the mandatory forty-eight-hour waiting period of the PNA, and that treatment may necessitate an abortion as defined in the PNA. Planned Parenthood, 107 F.Supp.2d at 1277. Medical experts deposed on behalf of both defendants and plaintiffs stated that delays required by the PNA for the provision of an abortion to treat medical complications could result in significant harm to the health of a pregnant woman and that these medical complications could often arise in circumstances short of imminent death. Planned Parenthood, 107 F.Supp.2d at 1277 & n. 9. Consequently, the PNA’s affirmative defense for imminent death would not be available to treating physicians in such situations.
Stated more formalistically, the evidence before the district court at the time of plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion showed (1) that there are circumstances in which pregnant minor women may be diagnosed by a physician with a pregnancy complication that could seriously threaten their health; (2) that such threatened harm may fall short of imminent death; and (3) that the forty-eight-hour delay required by the PNA would interfere with the medically appropriate treatment—an abortion—for these women.8 Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that there is no genuine issue as to the material fact that the PNA infringes on the ability of pregnant women to protect their health. We thus conclude that a health exception to Colorado’s Parental Notification Act is constitutionally required.
B
Although the State admits that “[w]ithin its four corners, the Act contains no express exception when an abortion is necessary for the minor’s health,”9 it con-
We agree with the district court that the language of the PNA is clear and unambiguous. “No abortion shall be performed” without written notice and the forty-eight-hour delay.
We further agree with the district court that where a statute is clear and unambiguous, the Colorado Supreme Court refuses to apply any rules of statutory construction. See, e.g., Nicholas v. People, 973 P.2d 1213, 1216 (Colo.1999) (en banc) (“Where the language is clear and unambiguous, we need not resort to rules of statutory construction.” (quotation omitted)). Thus, the State’s argument that we should use the doctrine of in pari materia, a rule of statutory construction, to interpret the Children’s Code provision as providing a health exception to the PNA is unavailing.13
C
We perceive only one way that would allow us to consider the State’s Children’s Code argument in light of the plain language of the PNA—if we first concluded that the Children’s Code judicial approval provision and the PNA were in conflict. In such a circumstance, we would be required to attempt to reconcile the two statutes. Scholz v. Metro. Pathologists, P.C., 851 P.2d 901, 911 (Colo.1993) (en banc) (“[W]hen two statutes apparently conflict, a court will strive to read them harmoniously so as to give effect to both.”). However, following Colorado’s principles of statutory interpretation, we nonetheless conclude that, even if a conflict exists, the PNA has superseded the conflicting provisions of the Children’s Code.
Arguably, the PNA and the Children’s Code conflict. The PNA by its terms requires compliance with its notice requirements and with its forty-eight-hour waiting period except for specified exceptions and affirmative defenses. In contrast, the Children’s Code authorizes judicial approval of emergency medical care—such as an abortion—when the parents cannot be contacted. “A conflict exists when one provision authorizes what the other forbids or forbids what the other authorizes.” Bickel v. City of Boulder, 885 P.2d 215, 228-29 (Colo.1994) (en banc);14 Ray v. City & County of Denver, 109 Colo. 74, 121 P.2d 886, 888 (Colo.1942) (en banc).
In the case of a conflict, we look to see how the courts of Colorado would construe the PNA and the Children’s Code judicial approval provision in order to reconcile them. As discussed above, the PNA has a clear and unambiguous prohibition against
In contrast, the Children’s Code broadly authorizes the provision of medical services on an emergency basis, as required only by the “best interest” of the child, upon authorization by a judge. Id.
The parties in this case have, explicitly or implicitly, suggested to us only two options for reconciling the PNA and the Children’s Code. First, we could read the judicial approval provision of the Children’s Code as remaining in force with respect to abortions, effectively carving out an additional exception from the PNA. This exception would theoretically apply whenever a doctor obtains permission from the juvenile court to provide a minor with an abortion when there is a medical emergency and when notice (without the procedural requirements of the PNA) cannot reasonably be provided to the parent. This is the alternative that the State urges upon us. Second, we could read the PNA as carving an exception from the Children’s Code—in essence requiring parental consent for all abortions, irrespective of the judicial approval provision of
Our options are thus limited to choosing which statute overrides the other, because regardless of which provision we conclude the legislature intended to effectuate, the result will by necessity abrogate the other statute in part. If we hold that the PNA carves an exception from the Children’s Code, then we have recognized a narrow exception to a statute of broad applicability. For almost all medical services, the provisions of the Children’s Code will continue to apply, but for abortions only, there will be a specific rule with more stringent parental notice requirements. On the other hand, if we hold that the Children’s Code was not superseded by the PNA and therefore remains effective in the abortion context, then we have recognized an additional exception to a statute of narrow applicability. The PNA’s parental notice requirements will not apply any time a medical emergency requires provision of an abortion to a minor where parental notice cannot be made with “reasonable effort.” Instead of only the four specific and enumerated exceptions and affirmative defenses to the PNA, there would also be a fifth.
We, of course, have no desire or authority to draft legislation—it is simply not our constitutional prerogative to do so. We therefore choose the option that best gives effect to both the PNA and the Children’s Code, and we hold that the PNA has superseded the Children’s Code. Under this interpretation the strict parental notice requirements of the PNA would stand and not infringe on the Children’s Code provisions in the vast majority of medical emergencies. Cf. Zaner v. City of Brighton, 899 P.2d 263, 267 (Colo.Ct.App.1995) (adopting an interpretation of a con-
This conclusion is consistent with Colorado statutory construction principles, which dictate that if two statutes irreconcilably conflict, then the later, more specific statute prevails. See
Other general principles of Colorado statutory construction support this conclusion.16 First, “as a general rule of statutory construction, [the] enumeration of exclusions from the operation of a statute indicates that the statute should apply to all cases not specifically excluded.” Nicholas, 973 P.2d at 1217 (quotation omitted). Following the State’s argument would result in recognizing a new exception to a statute that contains a list of specific exceptions; this is a form of statutory interpretation that the Colorado courts have avoided. See id. at 1216-17 (holding that a good-faith exception cannot be read into a statute requiring the presence of a parent when a juvenile is interro-
Moreover, the drafters of the PNA were aware of the potential for interaction with the Children’s Code and cited relevant provisions where necessary. See
Nor does the State’s argument that statutes should be construed whenever possible to avoid serious doubts as to their constitutionality alter our conclusion. Again, the language of the PNA is clear that there is no health exception, and the State’s proposed interpretation of the PNA and the Children’s Code would require us to ignore other equally relevant Colorado statutory interpretation principles. We are only to consider interpretations of statutes that are “fairly possible,” Communications Workers of Am., 487 U.S. at 762, and the State’s suggested interpretation is not fairly possible.
IV
We conclude that the PNA is unconstitutional because it fails to provide a health exception as required by the Constitution of the United States.18 The judg-
APPENDIX
(2) The people of the state of Colorado, being mindful of the limitations imposed upon them at the present time by the federal judiciary in the preservation of the parent-child relationship, hereby enact into law the following provisions.
(1) “Minor” means a person under eighteen years of age.
(2) “Parent” means the natural or adoptive mother and father of the minor who is pregnant, if they are both living; one parent of the minor if only one is living, or if the other parent cannot be served with notice, as hereinafter provided; or the court-appointed guardian of such minor if she has one or any foster parent to whom the care and custody of such minor shall have been assigned by any agency of the state or county making such placement.
(3) “Abortion” for purposes of this article means the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of a minor with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of that person’s unborn offspring at any time after fertilization.
(a) The notice shall be addressed to the parent at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the parent. Such notice shall be delivered to the parent by:
(I) The attending physician or member of the physician’s immediate staff who is over the age of eighteen; or
(II) By the sheriff of the county where the service of notice is made, or by his deputy; or
(III) By any other person over the age of eighteen years who is not related to the minor.
(b) Notice delivered by any person other than the attending physician shall be furnished to and delivered by such person in a sealed envelope marked “Personal and Confidential” and its content shall not in any manner be revealed to the person making such delivery.
(c) Whenever the parent of the minor includes two persons to be notified as provided in this article and such persons reside at the same dwelling house or place of abode, delivery to one such person shall constitute delivery to both, and the 48 hour period shall commence when delivery is made. Should such persons not reside together and delivery of notice can be made to each of them, notice shall be delivered to both parents, unless the minor shall request that only one parent be notified, which request shall be honored and shall be noted by the physician in the minor’s medical record. Whenever the parties are separately served with notice, the 48 hour period shall commence upon delivery of the first notice.
(d) The person delivering such notice, if other than the physician, shall provide to the physician a written return of service at the earliest practical time, as follows:
(I) If served by the sheriff or his deputy, by his certificate with a statement as to date, place, and manner of service and the time such delivery was made.
(II) If by any other person, by his affidavit thereof with the same statement.
(III) Return of service shall be maintained by the physician.
(e)(I) In lieu of personal delivery of the notice, the same may be sent by postpaid certified mail, addressed to the parent at the usual place of abode of the parent, with return receipt requested and delivery restricted to the addressee. Delivery shall be conclusively presumed to occur and the 48 hour time period as provided in this article shall commence to run at 12:00 o’clock noon on the next day on which regular mail delivery takes place.
(II) Whenever the parent of the minor includes two persons to be notified as provided in this article and such persons reside at the same dwelling house or place of abode, notice addressed to one parent and mailed as provided in the foregoing subparagraph shall be deemed to be delivery of notice to both such persons. Should such persons not reside together and notice can be mailed to each of them, such notice shall be separately mailed to both parents unless the minor shall request that only one parent shall be notified, which request shall be honored and shall be noted by the physician in the minor’s medical record.
(a) The person or persons who are entitled to notice certify in writing that they have been notified;
(b) The pregnant minor declares that she is a victim of child abuse or neglect by the acts or omissions of the person who would be entitled to notice, as such acts or omissions are defined in “The Child Protection Act of 1987”, as set forth in title 19, article 3, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, and any amendments thereto, and the attending physician has reported such child abuse or neglect as required by the said act.
(a) Commits a class 1 misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided in
(b) Shall be liable for damages proximately caused thereby.
(2) It shall be an affirmative defense to any criminal or civil proceedings if the person establishes that:
(a) The person relied upon facts or information sufficient to convince a reasonable, careful and prudent person that the representations of the pregnant minor regarding information necessary to comply with this article were bona fide and true; or
(b) The abortion was performed to prevent the imminent death of the minor child and there was insufficient time to provide the required notice.
(3) Any person who counsels, advises, encourages or conspires to induce or persuade any pregnant minor to furnish any physician with false information, whether oral or written, concerning the minors’ age, marital status, or any other fact or circumstance to induce or attempt to induce the physician to perform an abortion upon such minor without providing written notice as required by this article commits a Class 5 felony and shall be punished as provided in
(2)(a) If any pregnant minor elects not to allow the notification of any parent, any judge of a court of competent jurisdiction may, upon petition filed by or on behalf of such minor enter an order dispensing with the notice requirements of this article if the Judge determines that the giving of such notice will not be in the best interest of the minor, or if the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the minor is sufficiently mature to decide whether to have an abortion. Any such order shall include specific factual findings and legal conclusions in support thereof and a certified copy of such order shall be provided to the attending physician of said minor and the provisions of section 12-37.5-104(1) and section 12-37.5-106 of
(b) The court, in its discretion, may appoint a guardian ad litem for the minor and also an attorney if said minor is not represented by counsel.
(c) All court proceedings herein shall be confidential and shall be given preference over other pending matters, so that the court may reach a decision without undue delay.
(d) An expedited confidential appeal shall be available to any such minor for whom the court denies an order dispensing with notification as required by this article. Upon the minor’s representation as contained in her petition, or otherwise, that no funds are available to her for payment of filing fees, no filing fees shall be required in either the trial court or appellate court.
(a) Require any minor to submit to an abortion; or
(b) Prevent any minor from withdrawing her consent previously given to have an abortion; or
(c) Permit anything less than fully informed consent before submitting to an abortion.
(2) This article shall in no way be construed as either ratifying, granting or otherwise establishing an abortion right for minors independently of any other regulation, statute or court decision which may now or hereafter limit or abridge access to abortion by minors.
BALDOCK, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
As of this writing, a woman’s fundamental constitutional right to abort a fetus previability—without “undue interference” from the state—is settled. See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 946 (2000) (Stevens, J., concurring) (“[D]uring the past 27 years, the central holding of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), has been endorsed by all but 4 of the 17 justices who have addressed the issue.”). At the same time, Supreme Court Justices remain divided over state regulation of abortion, including regulation pertaining to minors. See H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398, 413-14 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring) (noting the divisive nature of questions over state statutes intended to encourage parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion). In a stream of opinions over the past three decades, the Justices have struggled to articulate meaningful standards for lower courts to apply. See e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 950 (1992) (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting in part) (“[W]hen confronted with state regulation ... [of abortion], the Court has become increasingly more divided[.]”) (citing cases). Justice White accurately predicted the future a quarter century ago: “In Roe v. Wade ... this Court recognized a right to an abortion free from state prohibition. The task of policing this limitation on state police power is and will be a difficult and continuing venture in substantive due process.” Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 92 (1976) (White, J., dissenting in part). True to Justice White’s words, state lawmakers continue to test the limits of Roe and courts continue to police those limits with no foreseeable end to the struggle.
Given Supreme Court precedent, I have little quarrel with the legal proposition that a state may not infringe on a woman’s ability, regardless of her age, to obtain an abortion in a timely manner where medically necessary to proscribe a serious health risk. See Court’s Op. at 8-12;
Resolution of the narrow issue in this case, and the possible validity of the CPNA, unquestionably turns on the Court’s application of Colorado state law.4
In Bellotti, a three-judge district court held a Massachusetts parental consent statute unconstitutional. Because the statute’s constitutionality turned on questions of state law, a unanimous Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment and directed the court to certify to the state’s highest court “appropriate questions concerning the meaning of [the statute] and the procedure it imposes.” Bellotti, 428 U.S. at 151. In abstaining, the Court explained:
It is sufficient that the statute is susceptible of the interpretation offered by [the State], and we so find, and that such an interpretation would avoid or substantially modify the federal constitutional challenge to the statute, as it clearly would. Indeed, in the absence of an authoritative construction, it is impossible to define precisely the constitutional question presented.
Id. at 148; see also Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416, 468-69 (1983) (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (arguing that despite the absence of a certification procedure, the Court should have abstained from declaring a parental consent provision of a municipal ordinance unconstitutional); but see Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 945 (declining to employ a state certification procedure where a Nebraska statute banning “partial birth abortion” outright was not “fairly susceptible” to a “narrowing” construction).6
We must assume that the Colorado Supreme Court, if given its rightful opportunity, would seek to construe the CPNA consistent with constitutional requirements. “Where fairly possible, courts should construe a statute to avoid a danger of unconstitutionality.” Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S.
Despite this responsibility, the Court side steps the State’s belated but perhaps most forceful argument, namely that
(1) The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
· · · · · ·
(e) A duly licensed physician, or a person acting under his direction, may use reasonable and appropriate physical force for the purpose of administering a recognized form of treatment which he reasonably believes to be adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient if:
· · · · · ·
(II) The treatment is administered in an emergency when the physician reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent.
Given the Court’s insistence to decide the CPNA’s constitutionality, I cannot understand the Court’s decision, based largely on procedural grounds, to shirk its responsibility to come to grips with
The Court states that “[i]t would be unfair to rule on the State’s argument based on
Without unduly analyzing each of the acceptable possibilities, I believe the Colorado Supreme Court could render a reasonable limiting construction of the CPNA to preserve it consistent with its intended applications. As the district court noted, nothing in the record suggests that Colorado voters in supporting the CPNA initiative “intend[ed] to place a pregnant minor’s health at risk” contrary to the minor’s best interests.7 See Owens, 107 F.Supp.2d at 1283 n. 21; compare Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 771 (1986) (“We necessarily conclude that the [Pennsylvania] legislature’s failure to provide a medical-emergency exception ... was intentional.”), overruled in part on other grounds by Casey, 505 U.S. at 870.
In the end, the Court concludes that a saving construction of the CPNA is not “fairly possible.” Court’s Op. at 30. I disagree. I am not convinced that, if called upon to construe the voter initiated and approved CPNA, the Colorado Supreme Court would refuse to narrow its application and construe it in a constitutional manner. Compare Matheson, 450 U.S. at 406-07 & n. 14 (parental notification law which did not explicitly exempt pregnant minors with emergency health care needs did not give the Court “any reason to assume that a minor in need of emergency treatment will be treated in any way different from a similarly situated adult”); Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 195 (1991) (rejecting a facial challenge to federal regulations barring a federal project from referring women to abortion providers where the regulations did not explicitly exempt cases of “imminent peril” to the mother’s life).
Today, the Court prematurely and perhaps unjustifiably thwarts the will of the Colorado electorate. Due to the lack of reasonable certainty as to how the CPNA will operate in its application or how the CPNA interacts with other Colorado laws, legislative or judicial, “our scrupulous regard for the rightful independence of state governments counsels against unnecessary [and premature] interference by the federal courts with proper and validly administered state concerns, a course so essential to the balanced working of our federal system.” Akron, 462 U.S. at 470 (O’Connor, J., dissenting).
Accordingly, I dissent.
Notes
The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State’s argument that a fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.... In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense. Accordingly, an abortion is not the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection. From this holding, there was no dissent. Indeed, no Member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a “person” does not have what is sometimes described as a “right to life.” This has been and, by the Court’s holding today, remains a fundamental premise of our constitutional law governing reproductive freedom.
Casey, 505 U.S. at 912-14 (Stevens, J., concurring in part) (internal quotations, citations, and footnote omitted).
Plaintiffs’ contraception claim was dismissed after the district court granted the State’s motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to a joint motion by the parties. Id. at 1276. Because relief was granted to plaintiffs on the health exception claim, the district court did not address the other federal constitutional claims. The state constitutional claims were dismissed without prejudice by the district court. Id.
further the legitimate state interest in ensuring that the minor’s decision is knowing and intelligent.”).Colo. Sup.Ct. R. 21.1 provides that a federal court, upon its own motion, may certify questions of state law “which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the [Colorado] Supreme Court.”
Although Casey overrules in part Thornburgh, Thornburgh’s essential holding regarding the health exception requirement was reaffirmed by Casey. See Jane L. v. Bangerter, 102 F.3d 1112, 1118 n. 7 (10th Cir.1996).
In this case, the district court inquired into the possibility of certifying state law questions to the Colorado Supreme Court under Colo. Sup.Ct. R. 21.1, but the parties were unreceptive. See Owens, 107 F.Supp.2d at 1275. Nevertheless, where appropriate, a federal court may consider abstention sua sponte. See Bellotti, 428 U.S. at 143-44 n. 10; Colo. Sup.Ct. R 21.1(b). Citing the equitable nature of abstention, the Court in Bellotti noted “the fact that the full arguments in favor of abstention may not have been asserted in the District Court does not bar this Court’s consideration of the issue.” Bellotti, 428 U.S. at 143 n. 10.However, the plain language of the PNA excludes the first option—even if a parent is notified and provides permission, the forty-eight-hour delay is only waived if the permission is provided in writing.
The second option—reporting a parent as abusive or neglectful—would seem to be an unwarranted response to a medical emergency where the difficulty of obtaining parental consent is due not to the refusal of a parent to consent, but rather to an inability to contact the parent during the minutes or hours within which a doctor must respond to a medical emergency. Such a situation does not appear to be what the Colorado legislature had in mind when it defined “child abuse or neglect” in the Children’s Code to include physical violence, id.
Similarly, the State relies on another part of the legislative declaration, which states, “The people of the state of Colorado, being mindful of the limitations imposed upon them at the present time by the federal judiciary in the preservation of the parent-child relationship, hereby enact into law the following provisions.”
We are especially skeptical of certifying this case not only because the parties expressly rejected the district court’s suggestion of certification, Planned Parenthood, 107 F.Supp.2d at 1275 (“Upon my inquiry, all parties recommended against certification of the issues to the Colorado Supreme Court.... Both sides in essence urged that the issues of this case, including any necessary statutory interpretation of state law, were inextricably tied to issues of federal constitutional law and should be decided in federal court.”), but also because the State—the party that is allegedly being harmed by our failure to certify—is the party that removed this case from state court to federal court in the first place, id. (characterizing the State’s rejection of certification to state court as “consistent with the [State’s] decision to remove this case to federal court”).