Tha case is Nova Health Systems v. Edmondson, 05-5085 (10th Cir., Aug. 25, 2006). The law blog Decision of the Day reported:
In a big abortion decision, the Tenth Circuit affirms the denial of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of an Oklahoma parental notification law. Although the law has a judicial bypass clause, it does not set forth a specific time frame for the bypass. Instead, the law requires courts to act on bypass requests with “sufficient expedition.”
The plaintiff, an abortion clinic, challenged the law on the ground that the bypass provision is not concrete enough to pass constitutional muster. Because a delay can increase the risks and complications of an abortion, the clinic argued that the statute’s imprecise language could harm minors who need to use the bypass. At least four circuits – including the Third, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth – agree with this reasoning and have struck down statutes that do not set forth specific time lines. But the Tenth Circuit disagrees and holds that the statutory language, requiring the courts to act promptly and expeditiously, will protect the minors’ interests. Judge Murphy concurs, explaining that the clinic should come back with evidence of the actual delay in order to challenge the statute successfully.
