Opinion ID: 453323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Twenty-Four Hour Waiting Period

Text: 7 In City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416, 103 S.Ct. 2481, 76 L.Ed.2d 687 (1983), the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance which imposed a twenty-four hour waiting period on women who had, pursuant to the ordinance, given written consent to obtain an abortion. 103 S.Ct. at 2503. The stated purpose underlying the waiting period was to allow a woman time to reflect upon her decision to have an abortion, thereby making a more informed decision. The Court found that this provision imposed a burden on women seeking to obtain an abortion and that the state had failed to demonstrate that the waiting period furthered any legitimate state interest. Id. at 2503. Therefore, the Court held that the provision was unconstitutional. 8 Although the ordinance struck down in Akron applied to both adults and minors, the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the application of waiting periods only to minors or weighed the state's interest in promoting parental consultation with a minor who seeks to obtain an abortion against the burdens imposed on minors by a waiting period. The Akron court also stated that, in view of the unique status of children under the law, states have a significant interest in certain abortion regulations aimed at protecting children which is not present when the state seeks to regulate adults. Akron, 103 S.Ct. at 2491 n. 10 (citing Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 75, 96 S.Ct. 2831, 2844, 49 L.Ed.2d 788 (1976)). The holding in Akron, therefore, may not apply to minors. In view of the other case law in this area, however, including several cases from this circuit, it is apparent that the Supreme Court's prohibition of waiting periods in abortion statutes also extends to statutes which regulate only minors. 9 The constitutional rights of minors do not receive lesser protection than the rights of adults. Danforth, 428 U.S. at 74, 96 S.Ct. at 2843 (citations omitted); Charles v. Carey, 627 F.2d 772, 785 (7th Cir.1980). Similarly, the burdens imposed by state regulation of abortion are no different for minors than for adults. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 642, 99 S.Ct. 3035, 3047, 61 L.Ed.2d 797 (1979) (Bellotti II ); Indiana Planned Parenthood v. Pearson, 716 F.2d 1127, 1143 (7th Cir.1983); Wynn v. Carey, 599 F.2d 193, 196 n. 6 (7th Cir.1979). Rather, the difference between abortion statutes which regulate adults and those which regulate only minors is that the state may have a significant interest promoted by a statute which regulates minors, but would have no legitimate interest in applying that statute to adults. Akron, 103 S.Ct. at 2491 n. 10; Danforth, 428 U.S. at 75, 96 S.Ct. at 2844. For example, the state has a legitimate interest in promoting parental consultation with a minor who is seeking to obtain an abortion because of the minor's presumed inability to make important decisions in an informed, mature manner and the serious concerns implicated by a decision to have an abortion. Bellotti II, 443 U.S. at 634, 99 S.Ct. at 3043. The state has no legitimate interest, however, in promoting such consultation when the woman seeking an abortion is mature. Akron, 103 S.Ct. at 2497. 10 The state clearly has a significant interest in promoting parental consultation with a minor before her decision to have an abortion. Akron, 103 S.Ct. at 2491 n. 10; H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398, 409-10, 101 S.Ct. 1164, 1171-72, 67 L.Ed.2d 388 (1981) (quoting Bellotti II, 443 U.S. at 640-41, 99 S.Ct. at 3046-47); Pearson, 716 F.2d at 1143. On the other hand, a mature minor or an immature minor in whose best interest it is to have an abortion has a constitutional right to have an abortion without notifying her parents. Matheson, 450 U.S. at 420, 101 S.Ct. at 1177 (Powell, J., concurring); Bellotti II, 443 U.S. at 647, 99 S.Ct. at 3050. Accord Akron, 103 S.Ct. at 2497-98 (parental consent statute); Planned Parenthood, Kansas City, Mo., Inc. v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 103 S.Ct. 2517, 2525, 76 L.Ed.2d 733 (1983) (parental consent statute). In balancing these two rights, the Supreme Court upheld a parental notification statute in Matheson because that statute promoted the state's interest in parental consultation with a minor without unduly burdening a minor's right to have an abortion. Matheson, 450 U.S. at 413, 101 S.Ct. at 1173. Accord Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476, 103 S.Ct. 2517, 76 L.Ed.2d 733 (1983) (upholding parental consent statute). 11 Neither the parental notification statute which the Court upheld in Matheson nor the parental consent statute which the Court upheld in Ashcroft requires a waiting period after notification or consent is effected. It is also worth noting that in Ashcroft the state did not appeal the Eighth Circuit's holding that the Missouri statute's forty-eight hour waiting period was unconstitutional. Ashcroft, 655 F.2d 848, 866 (8th Cir.1981), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 462 U.S. 476, 103 S.Ct. 2517, 76 L.Ed.2d 733 (1983) (waiting period severed from statute). We have been able to find only one case in which a waiting period has been upheld, Wolfe v. Schroering, 541 F.2d 523, 526 (6th Cir.1976), and that holding was subsequently overruled by the Sixth Circuit in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 651 F.2d 1198, 1208 (6th Cir.1981), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 462 U.S. 416, 103 S.Ct. 2481, 76 L.Ed.2d 687 (1983). Moreover, a plethora of cases have struck down provisions imposing a waiting period. See, e.g., Akron, 103 S.Ct. at 2503 (parental consent statute); American College of Obstetricians v. Thornburgh, 737 F.2d 283, 293 (3d Cir.1984) (parental consent and informed consent statute); Indiana Planned Parenthood v. Pearson, 716 F.2d 1127, 1143 (7th Cir.1983) (parental notification statute); Women's Services P.C. v. Thone, 690 F.2d 667, 668 (8th Cir.1982) vacated for further consideration in light of Akron, sub. nom. Kerrey v. Women's Services P.C., 462 U.S. 1126, 103 S.Ct. 3102, 77 L.Ed.2d 1358 (1983) (parental notification statute); Planned Parenthood League of Mass. v. Bellotti, 641 F.2d 1006, 1014-16 (1st Cir.1981) (parental consent and informed consent statute); Charles v. Carey, 627 F.2d 772, 786 (7th Cir.1980) (informed consent statute); Wynn v. Carey, 599 F.2d 193, 196 (7th Cir.1979) (parental consent statute); Women's Medical Center of Providence, Inc. v. Roberts, 530 F.Supp. 1136, 1137, 1147 (D.R.I.1982) (informed consent statute); Leigh v. Olson, 497 F.Supp. 1340, 1348 (D.N.D.1980) (parental notification and informed consent statute); Margaret S. v. Edwards, 488 F.Supp. 181, 212 (E.D.La.1980) (parental notification and informed consent statute); Women's Community Health Center v. Cohen, 477 F.Supp. 542, 551 (D.Me.1979) (informed consent statute). 12 These cases hold that a waiting period places a direct and substantial burden on women who seek to obtain an abortion. This burden is the same for minors as for adults, Bellotti II, 443 U.S. at 642, 99 S.Ct. at 3047; Charles v. Carey, 627 F.2d at 785, and therefore the same objections to the waiting periods for adults listed in City of Akron apply to waiting periods for minors. Pearson, 716 F.2d at 1143. The burden imposed by a waiting period has been reiterated with little variation in these cases. The District Court of Rhode Island cogently discussed several factors which it considered part of this burden in Women's Medical Center of Providence, Inc. v. Roberts, supra, stating 13 Although a mere twenty-four hour delay by itself may not increase the risk of an abortion to a statistically significant degree, the record in this litigation shows that the mandatory wait may combine with other scheduling factors such as doctor availability, work commitments, or sick leave availability, to increase the actual waiting period to a week or more.... [I]t is uncontested that delays of a week or more do indeed increase the risk of abortion to a statistically significant degree.... Furthermore, a delay of even twenty-four hours may push a woman into the second trimester, thus requiring that the operation be performed in a hospital, and significantly increasing the procedure's cost, inconvenience, and, of course, risk. 530 F.Supp. at 1146. 1 14 Courts have also noted that difficulties in scheduling may be complicated by the distance which a woman may have to travel in order to obtain an abortion. An extreme example of this was before the District Court of North Dakota in Leigh v. Olson, supra, in which the district court found that only one doctor in the entire state performed abortions and that women in certain parts of the state would have to drive some 400 miles in order to obtain an abortion. 497 F.Supp. at 1347. Finally, the cases cited above have noted that a waiting period may result in additional mental anguish for a significant number of women seeking abortions. See, e.g., Leigh v. Olson, 497 F.Supp. at 1347 n. 8 and accompanying text. 15 Because a waiting period places a direct and substantial burden on women who seek to obtain an abortion, the state is required to prove that the regulation is narrowly drawn to further a compelling interest. Charles v. Carey, 627 F.2d at 785. Accord Akron, 103 S.Ct. at 2495; Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 195, 93 S.Ct. 739, 749, 35 L.Ed.2d 201 (1974). Although it is not disputed that the state's interest in promoting parental consultation with a minor who seeks to obtain an abortion is significant, this Circuit has held that the state's interest is insufficient to impose a waiting period in light of the burden it places on the minor's right to obtain an abortion. Pearson, 716 F.2d at 1143. Accord Wynn v. Carey, 599 F.2d at 196. Mere parental notification, however, promotes the state's interest in parental consultation and is not unduly burdensome if it provides an exception to parental notification for mature minors and immature minors whose best interests require an abortion. Akron, 103 S.Ct. at 2497-98; Ashcroft, 103 S.Ct. at 2525; Pearson, 716 F.2d at 1132. Moreover, in Pearson we noted that [n]otification itself in most cases should lead to parental consultation without the state's additional help because minors are particularly susceptible to parental wishes. 716 F.2d at 1132. Thus, it appears that a mandatory waiting period is unconstitutional for two reasons; first, it imposes a far greater burden on a minor's rights than a parental notification requirement which provides an exception to notification for mature minors and immature minors whose best interests require an abortion, and second, it does not significantly further the state's interest in promoting parental consultation when combined with a notification requirement, which itself promotes that interest. 16 In view of the case law, the waiting requirement imposed by Section 4 of Illinois' 1983 Parental Notice Abortion Act, standing alone, is unconstitutional. The state argues, however, that the waiting period is not mandatory, and hence, not unconstitutional, because of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 provides that the twenty-four hour waiting requirement imposed by Section 4 does not apply when the minor's parents have been notified of the minor's decision to obtain an abortion and both parents either accompany the minor to the place where the abortion is to be performed or submit signed notarized statements indicating that they have been notified, presumably to the doctor who is to perform the abortion. The question before this court, therefore, is whether the provisions of Section 7 remove the constitutional infirmity from the waiting period imposed by Section 4. 17 As noted above, one reason that a waiting period is unconstitutional is because of the undue burden which it places on a woman's right to obtain an abortion. A proper initial question might then be whether the provisions of Section 7 alleviate in any way the burden imposed by Section 4. In order to avoid the strictures of Section 4, Section 7 requires a minor to coordinate the activities of both her parents to accompany her to an abortion clinic or to appear before a notary to sign a statement. These requirements, rather than alleviating the burden imposed by a waiting period, seem to increase it. The problems of scheduling, travel, and expense inherent in a waiting period will increase threefold if a minor's parents are required to accompany her to the abortion clinic or to make arrangements to appear before a notary. Thus, the requirements of Section 7 are more likely to result in greater delay in obtaining an abortion after a minor has notified her parents than the twenty-four hour wait imposed by Section 4. Therefore, Section 7 does not alleviate the burden imposed by Section 4, but merely offers an alternative, and apparently greater, burden to that which the case law holds unconstitutional. 18 Moreover, Section 7 does not seem to cure the defects of a waiting period which this Circuit addressed in Pearson. In Pearson, we found that the Indiana statute's waiting period was unconstitutionally arbitrary and inflexible because it applies both to minors whose parents have been notified within the time period and object and those whose parents have already expressed approval for the abortion. 716 F.2d at 1143. This same objection applies to Illinois' statute. Section 7 does not provide an exception to the waiting period for a minor whose parents approve of her decision to have an abortion; it merely provides her with an opportunity to obtain an abortion within twenty-four hours after notifying her parent's only if she complies with further requirements. As discussed above, it is unlikely that these requirements can be fulfilled within the twenty-four waiting period. Regardless, the imposition of further burdensome requirements once notice has been effected violates the plain command of Pearson that the state cannot require that an abortion be delayed once notification has been effected upon a minor's parents. 716 F.2d at 1143. Accord Akron, 103 S.Ct. at 2503. Thus, even if a minor could fulfill the requirements of Section 7 after only a short delay, that section is unconstitutional. 19 In examining Section 7's effect on the second constitutional infirmity of a waiting period, whether it sufficiently furthers the state's interest in parental consultation in view of the parental notice requirement, it is evident that the provisions of Section 7 do not make a waiting period more efficacious in promoting parental consultation. The only apparent effect of Section 7 is to make it more difficult for a minor to obtain an abortion once she has notified her parents of her decision if she does not wish to submit to the burden of a twenty-four hour waiting period. Thus, it does not appear that Section 7 promotes any state interest other than perhaps the state's interest in enforcing an unconstitutional waiting period under the guise that its statute provides exceptions to the waiting requirement. 20 In sum, Section 7 does not alleviate the burden on a minor's right to have an abortion and it does not further the state's interest in promoting parental consultation. Therefore, Section 7 does not remedy the constitutional infirmity of the waiting period imposed by Section 4. 21