Source: https://www.power2parent.org/minor-abortion-notification.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:02:51+00:00

Document:
AB405 passed the Nevada State Assembly last week and will move on to the Senate for a vote. If passed in the senate, it will require Governor Sandoval's signature before becoming law.
If passed, this law would require that parental notification be provided prior to a minor (aged 12-17) obtaining an abortion.
AN ACT relating to abortions; revising provisions regulating an abortion performed on a pregnant woman who is a minor or a ward; requiring notification of a parent or guardian under certain circumstances before a physician performs such an abortion; providing expedited procedures for petitioning a court for judicial authorization to proceed without such notification; providing civil liabilities and criminal penalties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.
Existing law in NRS 442.250 regulates the medical conditions under which abortions may be performed in this State. Because NRS 442.250 was submitted to and approved by a referendum of the voters at the 1990 general election, Section 1 of Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution dictates that the provisions of NRS 442.250 may not be amended, annulled, repealed, set aside, suspended or in any way made inoperative except by the direct vote of the people. In addition to the provisions of NRS 442.250, Nevada's abortion laws contain certain parental notification requirements that apply only to abortions performed upon pregnant minors. (NRS 442.255, 442.2555, 442.268) Because the parental notification requirements were not part of the referendum in 1990, they may be amended or repealed by the Legislature without being approved by the direct vote of the people. This bill repeals the existing parental notification requirements for pregnant minors and enacts new notification requirements that apply to pregnant minors and to pregnant wards, regardless of their age, for whom a legal guardian or conservator has been appointed. This bill conforms with Section 1 of Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution because this bill does not amend, annul, repeal, set aside, suspend or in any way make inoperative the provisions of NRS 442.250. Instead, this bill serves a different governmental purpose than the provisions of NRS 442.250 and enacts new laws that are separate and complete by themselves and are not amendatory of the provisions of NRS 442.250. (Matthews v. State ex rel. Nev. Tax Comm'n, 83 Nev. 266, 267-69 (1967)) In 1985, the Legislature enacted the existing parental notification requirements for pregnant minors which prohibit a physician, with certain exceptions, from knowingly performing an abortion upon a pregnant minor unless: (1) a custodial parent or guardian of the minor is notified in the statutorily-prescribed manner before the abortion; or (2) upon the request of the minor, the district court authorizes the abortion without parental notification when the minor meets certain criteria. (Chapter 681, Statutes of Nevada 1985, pp. 2306-09 (codified in NRS 442.255, 442.2555, 442.268)) Before the requirements became effective in 1985, Nevada's federal district court enjoined their implementation on grounds that they unconstitutionally burden a woman's fundamental right to make the highly personal choice of whether to have an abortion, thereby violating the woman's interests in personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Glick v. McKay, 616 F. Supp. 322, 323-28 (D. Nev. 1985)) In 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the federal district court's decision in Glick v. McKay, 937 F.2d 434, 437-42 (9th Cir. 1991). The Ninth Circuit relied upon two reasons for invalidating Nevada's existing parental notification requirements: (1) the requirements impermissibly narrowed the criteria under which the district court could give judicial authorization for an abortion without parental notification when the abortion would be in the minor's best interests; and (2) the requirements did not place any time limit on the period within which the district court must rule upon a request for judicial authorization and therefore they did not facially ensure that the minor's interests would be protected by expedited judicial review. (Glick v. McKay, 937 F.2d 434, 437-42 (9th Cir. 1991)) In 1997, when the United States Supreme Court reversed a different Ninth Circuit decision that struck down Montana's parental notification requirements, the United States Supreme Court disapproved the first reason relied upon by the Ninth Circuit in the Glick decision to strike down Nevada's parental notification requirements. (Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U.S. 292, 294-99 (1997)) However, the United States Supreme Court did not address the second reason relied upon by the Ninth Circuit in the Glick decision to strike down Nevada's parental notification requirements. As a result, based upon the second reason, the Ninth Circuit's Glick decision is still in effect in Nevada, which means that Nevada's existing parental notification requirements remain unconstitutional because they do not place any time limit on the period within which the district court must rule upon a request for judicial authorization and therefore they do not facially ensure that the minor's interests will be protected by expedited judicial review. (Glick v. McKay, 937 F.2d 434, 440-42 (9th Cir. 1991); Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Lawall (Lawall I), 180 F.3d 1022, 1029 n.9 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Nothing in Wicklund, however, affects Glick's holding regarding [the failure of Nevada's law to facially comply with] Bellotti II's expediency requirement.”), amended on denial of reh'g, 193 F.3d 1042, 1043 (9th Cir. 1999)) Section 27 of this bill repeals Nevada's existing parental notification requirements, and sections 10-18 of this bill enact new notification requirements that apply to pregnant minors and wards. The new notification requirements are modeled, in part, on portions of Minnesota's parental notification requirements that were upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 422-23 (1990) (plurality opinion) (upholding portions of Minn. Stat. § 144.343). However, the new notification requirements also take into account additional constitutional considerations addressed in other decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit regarding parental notification or consent statutes. (Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 323-28 (2006); Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U.S. 292, 294-99 (1997); Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 899-901 (1992); Ohio v. Akron Ctr. for Reproductive Health (Akron II), 497 U.S. 502, 510-19 (1990) (plurality opinion); Bellotti v. Baird (Bellotti II), 443 U.S. 622, 646-51 (1979) (plurality opinion); Planned Parenthood of Idaho v. Wasden, 376 F.3d 908, 924-35 (9th Cir. 2004); Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Lawall (Lawall II), 307 F.3d 783, 786-89 (9th Cir. 2002); Planned Parenthood of S. Ariz. v. Lawall (Lawall I), 180 F.3d 1022, 1027-33 (9th Cir. 1999), amended on denial of reh'g, 193 F.3d 1042, 1043 (9th Cir. 1999)) To carry out the new notification requirements, section 6 of this bill defines the term “minor” to mean a person who is less than 18 years of age, unmarried and unemancipated. To be considered emancipated and not a minor, the person must offer reasonable proof of a court order declaring the person to be emancipated under Nevada law or the law of any other state, territory or possession of the United States or the District of Columbia. Section 9 of this bill defines the term “ward” to mean a person for whom a legal guardian or conservator has been appointed because of a court finding of mental or intellectual incompetency, incapacity or insanity. Section 10 of this bill states that the new notification requirements are intended to assist minors and wards in making a knowing, intelligent and deliberate decision to give informed consent concerning a proposed abortion by requiring, with certain exceptions, notification of a parent or guardian of the minor or ward, followed by a waiting period of 48 hours, before a physician may perform an abortion upon the minor or ward. Sections 10-18 do not require a parent or guardian to consent to the abortion before it is performed and do not prohibit a physician from performing the abortion after notification has been provided and the waiting period has expired. Section 12 prohibits, with certain exceptions, a physician from knowingly performing an abortion on a minor or ward unless: (1) written notice of the proposed abortion is delivered to at least one parent or guardian in the statutorily-required manner; and (2) a period of not less than 48 hours has elapsed.
In Senate: Read first time. Referred to Committee on Finance. To committee. Exemption effective.
Read first time. Referred to Committee on Health and Human Services. To printer.
From committee: Without recommendation, and rerefer to Committee on Judiciary. Rereferred to Committee on Judiciary. To committee.
Read second time. Amended. (Amend. No. 536.) To printer.
From printer. To engrossment. Engrossed. First reprint. Read third time. Passed, as amended. Title approved, as amended. (Yeas: 24, Nays: 17, Excused: 1.) To Senate.
In Senate. Read first time. Referred to Committee on Finance. To committee. Exemption effective.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 144
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.