Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s request for issuance of preliminary injunction to ban enforcement of Indiana law that required parental notification of minor’s planned abortion unless judge found in bypass proceeding that such notice was not in minor’s “best interest.” Plaintiff showed likelihood of success on merits of case, where Indiana’s notice law created substantial risk of practical veto over mature, but yet unemancipated minor’s choice to obtain abortion. This is so, Ct. observed, since: (1) parental notification bypass granted to plaintiff’s minor patients had generally been based on juvenile court’s finding that minor was sufficiently mature, which was not basis for excusing parental notice under instant Indiana law; and (2) statute’s effect for mature minors would deter such individuals from even seeking bypass in first place. Ct. further noted that: (1) new parental notification requirement did not address any problem that it was intended to solve; and (2) burden of instant law on minors considering judicial bypass was greater than effect of judicial bypass on parent’s authority. (Dissent filed.)
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Abortion