Abortion-notice Law Gets Illinois High Court Approval
From the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
The Illinois Supreme Court today upheld a law requiring doctors to notify a parent when a daughter under age 18 seeks an abortion.
Concluding that the act "does not violate our state constitutional guarantees of due process, equal protection, privacy or gender equality," the court cleared the way for enforcement of the law, which had been in legal purgatory since being passed by a GOP-controlled legislature in 1995.
The ruling affirmed a 2010 decision by then-Cook County Circuit Judge Daniel A. Riley to dismiss the suit — The Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd., et al., v. Brent Adams, etc., et al. Nos. 112673 and 112704 cons. — and reversed a 1st District Appellate Court decision written by Justice Robert E. Gordon.
Justice Anne M. Burke delivered the Supreme Court's opinion, with Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride and Justices Robert R. Thomas and Lloyd A. Karmeier specially concurring.
The court rejected the notion that the law was facially unconstitutional due to privacy rights, acknowledging the state constitution provides stronger privacy protections than the U.S. Constitution. The justices held that state-required disclosure of medical information could be considered an intrusion, but it is not an "unreasonable" one when applied in this situation.
Read more in our daily News Update...
From the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin
The Illinois Supreme Court today upheld a law requiring doctors to notify a parent when a daughter under age 18 seeks an abortion.
Concluding that the act "does not violate our state constitutional guarantees of due process, equal protection, privacy or gender equality," the court cleared the way for enforcement of the law, which had been in legal purgatory since being passed by a GOP-controlled legislature in 1995.
The ruling affirmed a 2010 decision by then-Cook County Circuit Judge Daniel A. Riley to dismiss the suit — The Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd., et al., v. Brent Adams, etc., et al. Nos. 112673 and 112704 cons. — and reversed a 1st District Appellate Court decision written by Justice Robert E. Gordon.
Justice Anne M. Burke delivered the Supreme Court's opinion, with Chief Justice Thomas L. Kilbride and Justices Robert R. Thomas and Lloyd A. Karmeier specially concurring.
The court rejected the notion that the law was facially unconstitutional due to privacy rights, acknowledging the state constitution provides stronger privacy protections than the U.S. Constitution. The justices held that state-required disclosure of medical information could be considered an intrusion, but it is not an "unreasonable" one when applied in this situation.
Read more in our daily News Update...