Court Opinion

ID: 9837164
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:22:19.704237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:21.963079
License: Public Domain

COMBS, V.C.J.,
concurring specially, with whom KAUGER, TAYLOR, and GURICH,-JJ., join:
¶ 1 I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Senate Bill No. 642, 2015 Okla. Sess. Laws c. 387 (SB 642) is unconstitutional, not only because it violates Okla. Const, art. 5, 57, but also because it continues to place undue burdens on access to abortion under the guise of protecting the health of women.1 The United States Supreme Court ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992), reinforced by Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 2292, 195 L.Ed.2d 665 (2016), requires lower courts consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits the law confers. Hellerstedt, 136 *1054S.Ct. at 2309. By virtue of the Supremacy Clause, we are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court with respect to the federal Constitution and federal law, and we must pronounce rules of law that conform to extant Supreme Court jurisprudence. Akin v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 1998 OK 102, 30, 977 P.2d 1040; United States v. Home Fed. S. & L. Ass’n of Tulsa, 1966 OK 135, 418 P.2d 319.
¶ 2 The Supremacy Clause of the United States Const, art. VI, cl. 2 provides:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Additionally, Okla. Const, art. 1, 1 requires compliance with federal constitutional law on issues of federal law, and provides:
The State of Oklahoma is an inseparable part of the Federal Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
In In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122, 838 P.2d 1, this Court stated:
We are doubly bound to uphold the law of the land. Our limited role, like the role of all state courts in such cases, is to apply federal constitutional law, not to make it nor to guess what it may become. By virtue of our constitutional oath of office, we have solemnly sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. (Footnotes omitted).
¶ 3 SB 642 is constitutionally infirm not only because it violates Okla. Const, art. 5, 57, but also because it violates the standard set by the Supreme Court of the United States in Casey, and more recently revisited in Hellerstedt. In Casey, 505 U.S. at 878, 112 S.Ct. 2791, a plurality of the Court concluded a provision of law is constitutionally invalid if the purpose or effect of the provision is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. The United States Supreme Court also stated: “Unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 878, 112 S.Ct. 2791.
¶ 4 In Hellerstedt, the United States Supreme Court revisited the rale recognized by the plurality in Casey, and applied it to a Texas statute directly regulating abortion providers. The Court examined two provisions: 1) an admitting privileges requirement that effectively required physicians providing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles; and 2) a surgical-center requirement mandating abortion facilities meet the minimum standards for ambulatory surgery centers under Texas law. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. at 2300. After a detailed analysis, the United States Supreme Court determined neither provision conferred medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposed, and therefore each violated the Federal Constitution, Amdt. 14, 1. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. at 2300, 2309-2318. This binding precedent, mandates our review of the provisions of SB 642 to determine whether the provisions confer medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens on access imposed by their terms.
¶ 5 SB 642 contains four provisions that subject abortion providers to new requirements, and penalize them substantially for violations. Section 1 of SB 642 amends 63 O.S. 2011 l-740.4b, making it a felony when a person “intentionally causes, aids, abets or assists an unemancipated minor to obtain an abortion without the consent required by Section 1-740.2 of this title.” Further, Section 1 amends 63 O.S. 2011 l-740.4b to grant broad powers to the Attorney General, a district attorney, or any person adversely affected to enjoin conduct in violation of that section. The inclusion of such all-inclusive power to enforce to any person adversely affected greatly expands the threat of litigation to a limited very specific profession in a method not heretofore seen.
¶ 6 Section 2 of SB 642 creates a new section of law, to be codified at 63 O.S. 1-749, authorizing the Oklahoma State Bureau of *1055Investigation to create a new forensic protocol for statutory rape investigations and requiring abortion providers to preserve fetal tissue when an abortion is performed on a minor less than 14 years of age. Section 2 further declares that failure to comply with the new section or resulting rules is both: 1) unprofessional conduct; and 2) a felony. This provision forces a limited section of health care providers to become- agents of - law enforcement and failure to perform these requirements would lead to both professional discipline and a violation of criminal law. What other areas of the medical profession have such far reaching requirements?
¶ 7 Most troubling are Sections 3 and 4 of SB 642. Section 3 adds a new section of law to be codified at 63 O.S. 1-749.1, granting sweeping authority to the State Board of Health to promulgate policies and procedures for conducting licensure and re-licensure inspections of abortion facilities. Section 3 further grants the State Commissioner of Health inspection authority, and provides in pertinent part:
C. If the State Commissioner of Health determines that there is reasonable cause to believe a licensee, licensed abortion facility or abortion facility that is required to be licensed in this state is not adhering to the requirements of Section l-729a et seq. of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, local fire ordinances or rules or any other law, administrative rule or regulation relating to abortion, the Commissioner and any duly designated employee or agent of the Commissioner including employees of county or city-county health departments and county or municipal fire inspectors, consistent with standard medical practices, may enter on and into the premises of the licensee, licensed abortion facility or abortion facility that is required to be licensed in this state during regular business hours ' of the licensee or abortion facility to determine compliance with the provisions of Section l-729a et seq. of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, local fire ordinances or rules, and any other law, administrative rule or regulation relating to abortion.
Additionally, Section 3 provides for the closure of abortion facilities that fail to comply with any of the new requirements, as well as existing ones:
E. If an inspection or investigation conducted pursuant to this section reveals that an applicant, licensee or licensed abortion facility is not adhering to the requirements of this section, the provisions of Title 1-729a et seq. of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes, local fire ordinances or rules and any other law, administrative rule or regulation relating to abortion, the Commissioner may take action to deny, suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a license to operate an abortion facility.
,¶ 8 Section 4 of SB 642 also creates a new section of law, to be codified at 63 O.S. 1-750. This provision is primarily punitive, and punishes any person who intentionally, knowingly or recklessly violates “any provision or requirement of this act, Section l-729a et seq. of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes or any regulation adopted under Section l-729a et seq. of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.” Section 4 makes such a violation a felony, and subject to a civil penalty or a fine up to $100,000.00.
¶ 9 Sections 3 and 4 of SB 642 both reference 63 O.S. l-729a, which regulates termination of pregnancy through the use of certain medications. Section 4 provides severe penalties for any intentional, knowing or reckless violation of 63 O.S. l-729a. The constitutionality of the bill which most recently modified 63 O.S. l-729a (2014 Okla. Sess. Laws c. 121, 375-80 (HB 2684)), was considered by this Court in Okla. Coal. for Repro. Justice v. Cline, 2016 OK 17, 368 P.3d 1278. While I agreed with the majority’s determination that the bill was not unconstitutional on the narrow grounds the Court considered, I wrote separately to emphasize the dangerous line the Legislature insisted on walking. I noted, specifically, that “[wjhile H.B. 2684 does not prohibit all medication abortions, it nonetheless binds Oklahoma physicians and their patients to the FDA’s final printed labeling, regardless of whether evidence and the judgment of the medical community indicate it is not the best method for providing medication abortion.” Cline, 2016 OK 17, 2, 368 P.3d 1278 (Combs, V.C.J., concurring specially). I also noted that little had changed *1056in the statute from its prior incarnation, which this Court previously considered:
In Cline II, 2013 OK 93 [313 P.3d 253], this Court examined a prior statute requiring adherence to the FDA’s final printed labeling for abortion-inducing drugs. We noted with disapproval the law’s drastic interference in the role of physicians and agreed with the determination of the district court that restricting the use of abortion-inducing drugs to the regime in the final printed labeling “ ‘is so completely at odds with the standard that governs the practice of medicine that it can serve no purpose other than to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to punish and discriminate against those who do.’ ” Cline II, 2013 OK 93, 27 [313 P.3d 253] (quoting Okla. Coal. for Repro. Justice v. Cline, No. CV-2011-1722, slip op., 7 (Dist. Ct. Okla. Cnty. May 11, 2012)). H.B. 2684 requires adherence to a protocol in contravention of prevailing medical standards; one that simultaneously shrinks the window in which medication abortion is accessible to the women of Oklahoma. This Court’s above-quoted statement from Cline II remains apt.
Cline, 2016 OK 17, 4, 368 P.3d 1278 (Combs, V.C.J., concurring specially).
¶ 10 The Legislature’s substitution of its judgment for that of physicians concerning best practices by requiring adherence to a protocol in contravention of prevailing medical standards, is troubling. With SB 642, any intentional deviation from that protocol becomes a felony, and subjects providers to closure and a potentially enormous fine. Further, there are. other pitfalls that arise with any required adherence to 63 O.S. Supp. 2014 l-729a because it has potentially become unclear what protocol physicians are required to follow. Section l-729a contains a findings component that notes specific details of the FDA’s original final printed labelling for Mi-feprex, an abortion-inducing drug. For exam-pie, 63 O.S. Supp. 2014 l~729a(A)(4) provides:
As approved by the FDA, and as outlined in the Mifeprex final printed labeling (FPL), an abortion by mifepristone consists of three two-hundred-milligram tablets of mifepristone taken orally, followed by two two-hundred-microgram tablets of misoprostol taken orally, through forty-nine (49) days LMP (a gestational measurement using the first day of the woman’s “last menstrual period” as a marker). The patient is to return for a follow-up- visit in order to confirm that the abortion has been completed. This FDA-approved protocol is referred to as the “Mifeprex regimen” or the “Rtb-486. regimen”
However, the FDA changed these requirements on March 29, 2016, when it approved a supplemental application by the company that markets Mifeprex. Questions and Answers on Mifeprex, March 30, 2106, http:// www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/Postmarket DrugSafetylnformationforPatientsand Providers/ucm492705.htm.2 The findings contained in 63 O.S. Supp. 2014 l-729a are no longer in accord with the current FDA label, which has changed in several ways, including but not limited to: 1) permitting use through 70 days’ gestation instead of 49; 2) specifying a single 200mg dose on day one instead of three; 3) and allowing home administration of Misoprostol. Mifeprex Label, 2016, Ref. ID: 3909592, available at http://www.accessdata. fda.gov/drugsatfda^docs/label/2016/020687s 0201bl.pdf.
¶ 11 Sections 3 and 4 of SB 642 compel compliance with 63 O.S. Supp. 2014 l~729a, with providers facing closure and potentially a felony for failing to comply. Meanwhile, the detailed findings of 63 O.S. Supp. 2014 1-729a (based on the outdated FDA final printed labelling) which are used to justify adherence to the FDA final printed labelling, are now not only at odds with the prevailing standard of care but also at odds with the *1057current FDA-approved regime itself. This raises the specter of substantial ambiguity in a statute that abortion providers will be forced to adhere to lest they be subjected to strict penalties.
¶ 12 While the articulated goal of SB 642 is to protect the health' of women, it creates an open-ended array of regulatory hurdles that subject practitioners, to harsh penalties for any potential violation. It is an inescapable conclusion that SB 642 will make it considerably more difficult for providers to operate, and accordingly will make it more difficult for the women of Oklahoma to exercise their federally-recognized constitutional right to control their own . reproductive futures. I would find SB 642 unconstitutional not only because it violates Okla. Const, art. 5, 57, but also because it places an undue burden on the right of women to choose. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. at 2300; Casey, 505 U.S. at 874, 112 S.Ct. 2791.

. In public law controversies, this Court is free to decide a case on all dispositive issues, regardless of whether they were tendered below. Ashikian v. State ex rel. Okla. Horse Racing Comm’n, 2008 OK 64, 17 n.45, 188 P.3d 148; Davis v. GHS Health Maint. Org., Inc., 2001 OK 3, 25-26, 22 P.3d 1204; Simpson v. Dixon, 1993 OK 71, 26 n.55, 853 P.2d 176. Accordingly, this Courtis not limited to Appellant’s claim concerning Okla. Const, art. 5, 57 if the record compels a conclusion that SB 642 is unconstitutional on other grounds. See Simpson, 1993 OK 71, 26, 853 P.2d 176.

. Title 12 O.S. 2011 2202 permits the courts to take judicial notice of facts whether requested or not, which are not subject to dispute when they are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Actions taken by the FDA and disclosed on its own website present such a situation. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has pointed out, it is not uncommon for courts to take judicial notice of factual information found on the World Wide Web. O’Toole v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 499 F.3d 1218, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007).