Opinion ID: 787339
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Unconstitutionally Vague Provisions

Text: 96 The Fourteenth Amendment is violated by laws so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at their meaning and differ as to their application. Planned Parenthood v. Arizona, 718 F.2d 938, 947 (9th Cir.1983); see also Forbes v. Napolitano, 236 F.3d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir.2000). A law is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited, id. (citing Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-03, 86 S.Ct. 518, 15 L.Ed.2d 447 (1966)), or is so indefinite as to allow arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, id. (citing City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 52, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999)). On the other hand, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 110, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). 97 Given the potential for harassment of abortion providers, it is particularly important that enforcement of any unconstitutionally vague provisions of the scheme be enjoined. See Women's Med. Ctr., 248 F.3d at 422 (making a similar point). Also, [i]f a statute subjects transgressors to criminal penalties, as this one does, vagueness review is even more exacting. Forbes, 236 F.3d at 1011. 98 The district found unconstitutionally vague a provision of the statutory scheme requiring a licensee to ensure that a patient is afforded the following rights, and is informed of these rights: [ ] To be treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of the patient's dignity and individuality. Ariz. Admin. Code R9-10-1507. We affirm the district court's holding that this provision is unconstitutionally vague. 99 In Women's Med. Ctr. of N.W. Houston, the Fifth Circuit struck down a similar provision because it subjected physicians to sanctions based not on their own objective behavior, but on the subjective viewpoints of others. 248 F.3d at 422. In Forbes, this circuit struck down as unconstitutional provisions including the ambiguous words experimentation, investigation, and routine. 236 F.3d at 1010. Forbes found these words, which were not defined in the statute, ambiguous, especially in view of the fact that the distinction between experimentation and treatment changes over time. Id. at 1012. 100 Similarly here, understandings of what consideration, respect, dignity, and individuality mean are widely variable, and they are not medical terms of art. This is especially problematic since the provision requires  full recognition of dignity and individuality. This provision is too vague and subjective for providers to know how they should behave in order to comply, as well as too vague to limit arbitrary enforcement. Thus, we agree with the district court that it is unconstitutionally vague and cannot be enforced. By failing to brief them, plaintiffs have abandoned their vagueness challenges to other parts of the statute, so we do not reach these claims. See Kline v. Johns-Manville, 745 F.2d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir.1984).