Court Opinion

ID: 9715632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:10:30.384067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:36.447429
License: Public Domain

VERNIERO, J.,
dissenting.
I will not repeat the careful analysis set forth in Justice O’Hern’s dissenting opinion, which I join. I write separately only to add the following.
If the statute infringed on the reproductive rights of women to any significant degree, I would join the majority. However, I do not share the Court’s characterization of the statute. I view the statute by its plain terms as one that does not unduly regulate or forbid any form of abortion procedure.
In that regard, the statute in this case is markedly different from the law at issue in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero, 41 F.Supp.2d 478 (D.N.J.1998), aff'd sub nom. Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127 (3d Cir.2000). In that case, the United States District Court *656held that New Jersey’s law prohibiting the “partial-birth abortion” procedure was impermissibly vague, was an undue burden on reproductive rights, and did not adequately protect the mother’s health. Id. at 496, 499, 502. In contrast, the notification statute does not significantly encumber a physician’s ability to advise and treat patients according to their needs. When measured against the right of parents to be informed of significant health issues affecting their minor children, the law is sustainable. Stated differently, the statute accommodates the rights of both young women and their parents within this limited context of notification.
To the extent that the judicial bypass procedures prove insufficient in practice, I would require the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to redesign those procedures to assure access to the courts in a confidential setting. Unlike the majority, I cannot conclude on this record that the AOC procedures are beyond constitutional repair. I would remand the matter to enable the parties to develop a full record before taking the extraordinary step of invalidating the statute based on asserted flaws in the AOC procedures.
For reversal — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices STEIN, COLEMAN and LONG — 4.
For affirmance — Justice O’HERN — 1.
For affirmance and remandment — Justice VERNIERO — 1.