## Facts

- Ohio enacted H.B. 319, making it a crime to perform an abortion on an unmarried, unemancipated minor unless a physician gives timely notice to one parent or a juvenile court authorizes the minor to consent.
- The statute allowed a judicial bypass if the minor proved by clear and convincing evidence that (1) she was sufficiently mature and informed, (2) a parent had engaged in a pattern of physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, or (3) notice was not in her best interests.
- It permitted constructive notice when actual notice was impossible after a reasonable effort.
- The minor had to file a bypass complaint in juvenile court on prescribed forms; if she lacked counsel, the court had to appoint an attorney and a guardian ad litem.
- The statute required expedited juvenile-court proceedings and expedited appellate review; if either court failed to act on time, the minor received constructive authorization to proceed.
- Courts were required to protect the minor’s anonymity and keep papers confidential.
- An abortion facility, a physician, and an unemancipated minor filed a facial federal challenge; the district court enjoined enforcement and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio’s one-parent notice requirement, combined with its judicial bypass scheme, is facially unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on a minor seeking an abortion.
2. Whether specific features of the bypass procedure—clear-and-convincing proof, constructive notice after “reasonable effort,” required forms, and appointment of counsel and a guardian ad litem—render the scheme constitutionally inadequate.
3. Whether the statute sufficiently ensures confidentiality, anonymity, and prompt resolution as required for a valid bypass procedure.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and upheld H.B. 319 against the facial challenge.
- The Court held that, on its face, the statute did not impose an undue or otherwise unconstitutional burden on a minor seeking an abortion.
- The Court concluded the bypass provisions, including the clear-and-convincing standard, confidentiality protections, and expedited procedures with constructive authorization, were constitutionally permissible.

## Legal Principles

- A state may require parental notice for a minor’s abortion if it provides an adequate judicial bypass procedure.
- An adequate bypass must be confidential and expeditious and must give a realistic opportunity to obtain authorization by showing maturity/informed decisionmaking or that bypass is in the minor’s best interests (including in abuse-related circumstances).
- A facial challenge to an abortion regulation requires more than speculative problematic applications; the challengers must show the law is unconstitutional in a significant range of its applications.
- A clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard in bypass proceedings is not unconstitutional per se if the procedure remains a meaningful avenue for relief.
- Time limits backed by automatic authorization mechanisms can satisfy the requirement that bypass proceedings not be delayed in a way that effectively denies the right.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained Ohio’s minor-abortion parental-notice statute on its face, holding that the judicial bypass system—despite requiring clear-and-convincing proof and including constructive notice and procedural requirements—provided confidential, prompt, and effective access to authorization and therefore did not impose an undue burden.


Ohio v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 497 U.S. 502 (1990)