Court Opinion

ID: 9519189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:11:05.610191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:53.848240
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
concurring in result.
I concur with the majority that the answers to certified questions 1, 2, and 3 are yes, no, and yes, respectively, but my conclusion rests upon different grounds. I accept the majority's statutory construction of the definition of "medical emergency" in Public Law 187-1995, because I believe it is necessitated by federal constitutional considerations. See Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992). Were it not for our overriding obligation to construe our statutes in such a way as to render them constitutional if reasonably possible, I would agree with Justice Sullivan's literal interpretation of the "medical emer-geney" definition enacted by our legislature.