Case Name: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTH CAROLINA INCORPORATED; Renee Carter, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. B. Boykin ROSE, in his official capacity as the Director of the Department of Public Safety of the State of South Carolina; Jon E. Ozmint, in his official capacity as the Director of the Department of Corrections of South Carolina; Kim S. Aydlette, in her official capacity as the Director of the Department of Social Services of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellants. Liberty Counsel; Louisiana Lawyers For Life; Louisiana Family Forum; Louisiana Law & Justice Foundation, Amici Supporting Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-28
Citations: 373 F.3d 580
Docket Number: No. 03-1118
Parties: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTH CAROLINA INCORPORATED; Renee Carter, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. B. Boykin ROSE, in his official capacity as the Director of the Department of Public Safety of the State of South Carolina; Jon E. Ozmint, in his official capacity as the Director of the Department of Corrections of South Carolina; Kim S. Aydlette, in her official capacity as the Director of the Department of Social Services of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellants. Liberty Counsel; Louisiana Lawyers For Life; Louisiana Family Forum; Louisiana Law & Justice Foundation, Amici Supporting Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 373
Pages: 580–589

Head Matter:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTH CAROLINA INCORPORATED; Renee Carter, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. B. Boykin ROSE, in his official capacity as the Director of the Department of Public Safety of the State of South Carolina; Jon E. Ozmint, in his official capacity as the Director of the Department of Corrections of South Carolina; Kim S. Aydlette, in her official capacity as the Director of the Department of Social Services of South Carolina, Defendants-Appellants. Liberty Counsel; Louisiana Lawyers For Life; Louisiana Family Forum; Louisiana Law & Justice Foundation, Amici Supporting Appellant.
No. 03-1118.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Filed: June 28, 2004.

Opinion:
ORDER
Appellants filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc.
Judge Luttig, Judge Michael, and Judge Gregory voted to deny the petition for rehearing.
On the poll requested by a member of the court on the petition for rehearing en banc, Judge Widener, Judge Niemeyer, Judge Williams, Judge Trader, and Judge Shedd voted to grant rehearing en banc. Chief Judge Wilkins, Judge Wilkinson, Judge Luttig, Judge Michael, Judge Motz, Judge King, Judge Gregory, and Judge Duncan voted to deny rehearing en banc.
The petition for rehearing is denied, and because the poll of judges in active service failed to produce a majority in favor of rehearing en banc, the petition for rehearing en banc is also denied. Judge Wilkinson wrote an opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc. Judge Shedd wrote an opinion, joined by Judge Williams, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc.