Opinion ID: 1683707
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Constitutionality of 24-hour waiting period

Text: Planned Parenthood also argues that the 24-hour waiting provision violates the Missouri Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States held in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that a 24-hour waiting period does not violate the federal constitution. 505 U.S. 833, 887, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992). That opinion stated: [W]e are not convinced that the 24-hour waiting period constitutes an undue burden.... [T]he right protected by Roe is a right to decide to terminate a pregnancy free of undue interference by the State. Because the informed consent requirement facilitates the wise exercise of that right, it cannot be classified as an interference with the right Roe protects. The informed consent requirement is not an undue burden on that right. Despite Casey, Planned Parenthood argues that the Missouri constitution should be construed more broadly than the United States constitution. The federal due process clause states, in part: [N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.... U.S. Const. amend. XIV, sec. 1. The Missouri constitution contains two related clauses. Missouri's due process clause states: That no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 10. Article I, section 2 of the Missouri constitution also states: That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design. There is no reason, within the context of this case, to construe this language from the Missouri constitution more broadly than the language used in the United States constitution. See State v. Walsh, 713 S.W.2d 508, 513 (Mo. banc 1986); see generally State ex rel. Danforth v. Cason, 507 S.W.2d 405, 408-09 (Mo. banc 1973).