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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.