Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd. v. Flores

• Decision Date: 11 July 2013
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 112673,112704 cons.
• Citation: 991 N.E.2d 745,2013 IL 112673,372 Ill.Dec. 255
• Parties: The HOPE CLINIC FOR WOMEN, LTD., et al., Appellees, v. Manuel FLORES, Acting Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, et al., Appellants (Stewart Umholtz, State's Attorney, Tazewell County, Illinois, et al., Proposed Intervening Appellants).
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

2013 IL 112673

991 N.E.2d 745

372 Ill.Dec. 255

The HOPE CLINIC FOR WOMEN, LTD., et al., Appellees,

v.Manuel FLORES, Acting Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, et al., Appellants (Stewart Umholtz, State's Attorney, Tazewell County, Illinois, et al., Proposed Intervening Appellants).

Docket Nos. 112673, 112704 cons.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

July 11, 2013.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Springfield (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, Jane Elinor Notz, Deputy Solicitor General, and Brett Legner, Assistant Attorney General, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

Kathleen L. Roach, Rachel B. Niewoehner, Geeta Malhotra and Dan Craig, of Sidley Austin LLP, and Lorie A. Chaiten, Harvey Grossman, Leah Bartelt and Krista Stone-Manista, all of Chicago, and Jennifer Dalven and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, of New York, New York, for appellees.

Thomas Brejcha and Peter Breen, of Chicago, and Paul Benjamin Linton, of Northbrook, all of the Thomas More Society, for proposed intervenors Stewart Umholtz, State's Attorney of Tazewell County, and Edward Deters, State's Attorney of Effingham County, and for amici curiae Illinois State's Attorneys.

Mailee R. Smith, of Washington, D.C., for amici curiae Illinois Legislators.

Richard C. Baker, Amy J. Parrish and Noel W. Sterett, of Mauck & Baker, LLC, of Chicago, and Steven H. Aden, of Washington, D.C., for amici curiae Christian Medical and Dental Associations et al.

Alan S. Gilbert, Leah R. Bruno and Jillian Gutman Mann, of SNR Denton US LLP, of Chicago, for amici curiae Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation et al.

OPINION

Justice BURKE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices Freeman, Garman, and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion. Justice Thomas Specially concurred, with opinion, joined by Chief Justice Kilbride and Justice Karmeier.

[372 Ill.Dec. 258]¶ 1 On October 13, 2009, plaintiffs, The Hope Clinic for Women, Ltd., and Dr. Allison Cowett, filed suit in the circuit court of Cook County seeking to enjoin enforcement of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 (the Act) (750 ILCS 70/1 et seq. (West 2010)). Plaintiffs alleged that the Act is facially invalid, violating the privacy, due process, equal protection, and gender equality clauses of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §§ 2, 6, 12, 18). Defendants, Manuel Flores, in his capacity as Acting Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation; Daniel Bluthardt, in his capacity as Director of the Division of Professional Regulation of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation; and the Illinois State Medical Disciplinary Board, moved for judgment on the pleadings (735 ILCS 5/2–615(e) (West 2010)) or, in the alternative, dismissal of the complaint (735 ILCS 5/2–619(a)(4) (West 2010)). Stewart Umholtz, as State's Attorney of Tazewell County, and Edward Deters, as State's Attorney of Effingham County, petitioned the circuit court for leave to intervene in the matter. 735 ILCS 5/2–408(a)(2) (West 2010).

¶ 2 On March 29, 2010, after hearing argument, the circuit court upheld the facial validity of the Act, granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. The circuit court then denied the proposed intervenors' petition as moot.

¶ 3 Plaintiffs and the proposed intervenors appealed the circuit court's orders. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint and remanded for further proceedings, but affirmed the order denying the proposed intervenors' petition to intervene. 2011 IL App (1st) 101463, 353 Ill.Dec. 44, 955 N.E.2d 511.

¶ 4 Petitions for leave to appeal were filed in this court by the proposed intervenors in No. 112673, and defendants in No. 112704. We granted the petitions and consolidated the appeals for review. Ill. S.Ct. R. 315 (eff. Feb. 26, 2010).

¶ 5 BACKGROUND

¶ 6 Before addressing the issues raised in this appeal, it is important to set forth the long history of litigation associated with this case. The Illinois legislature enacted the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 (the Act) after it repealed the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1983 (the 1983 Act). See Ill.Rev.Stat.1985, ch. 38, ¶ 81–61 et seq.; Pub. Act 83–890 (eff. Jan. 31, 1984). The 1983 Act became law on November 2, 1983, over the veto of then-Governor Thompson. The 1983 Act prohibited “unemancipated minors and incompetents” from obtaining an abortion unless both parents, or the legal guardian, were given notification. A putative class of physicians who provided or sought to provide abortions filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois challenging the constitutionality of the 1983 Act under the federal constitution. See Zbaraz v. Hartigan, 584 F.Supp. 1452, 1454 (N.D.Ill.1984)( Zbaraz I ).

¶ 7 The federal district court, after reviewing relevant federal case law, held the 1983 Act to be constitutionally defective because: (1) it required a waiting period of at least 24 hours after notice was given to the minor's parents; (2) the judicial procedures for obtaining a waiver of the notification requirement, i.e., the “judicial bypass” procedures, failed to provide for expeditious appellate review of notification decisions; and (3) the judicial bypass procedures did not assure the minor's or the incompetent's anonymity at either the trial or appellate level. Id. at 1459, 1461–62.¹ Although the plaintiffs also had argued the unconstitutionality of other provisions within the Act, the court found these other provisions to be constitutionally sufficient. The court did, however, identify other problems with the statute which the plaintiffs had not raised. Id. at 1462–67.

¶ 8 Having ruled the Act unconstitutional, the district court permanently enjoined the defendants in that case—Neil Hartigan, in his official capacity as then-Attorney General of Illinois, and Richard M. Daley, in his official capacity as then-State's Attorney for Cook County and as representative of all State's Attorneys of all the counties of Illinois—from enforcing the provisions of the Act.

¶ 9 The district court's decision was affirmed in part and vacated in part by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See Zbaraz v. Hartigan, 763 F.2d 1532 (7th Cir.1985)( Zbaraz II ). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that the requirement of a 24–hour waiting period was unconstitutional, but found that portion of the Act to be severable. Id. at 1534. As to the “judicial bypass” procedures, however, the court vacated the district court's finding of unconstitutionality, but continued to enjoin enforcement of the statute “until the Illinois Supreme Court promulgates rules which assure the expeditious and confidential disposition of the waiver of notice proceedings at trial and on appeal.” Id. at 1535, 1540–41. The court explained that, because time is of the essence in abortion decisions, the absence of rules providing for an expedited appeal was a fundamental defect requiring the statute to be enjoined. Id. at 1544 (relying on American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Pennsylvania Section v. Thornburgh, 737 F.2d 283, 297 (3d Cir.1984)). The cause was remanded to the district court “for a determination of the constitutionality of the waiver of notice proceedings when such rules are enacted.” Id. at 1545.

¶ 10 The Seventh Circuit's opinion was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, without opinion, “by an equally divided court.” Hartigan v. Zbaraz, 484 U.S. 171, 172, 108 S.Ct. 479, 98 L.Ed.2d 478 (1987) ( per curiam ) ( Zbaraz III ).

¶ 11 Subsequently, then-Attorney General Neil Hartigan and then-State's Attorney Cecil Partee petitioned the federal district court to review the constitutionality of the 1983 Act in light of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(e), which had been promulgated by this court to provide for an expedited and confidential appeal of a waiver of notice decision. The district court found, however, that the bypass procedure, as set forth in Rule 307(e), was insufficient and did not cure the failure of the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1983 to provide a constitutional alternative to parental notification. The district court held that the safeguards for confidentiality and anonymity were insufficient to protect an unemancipated minor seeking to have an abortion throughout the waiver process, that is, from the moment a waiver petition is filed until the completion of any appeal. Accordingly, the court refused to lift the permanent injunction. See Zbaraz v. Hartigan, 776 F.Supp. 375 (N.D.Ill.1991)( Zbaraz IV ).

¶ 12 On June 1, 1995, the Illinois General Assembly repealed the 1983 Act and replaced it with the Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995. See 750 ILCS 70/1 et seq. (West 1996). The 1995 Act prohibits a physician from performing an abortion upon an unemancipated minor or “incompetent person” unless “48 hours actual notice” is given to “an adult family member.” 750 ILCS 70/15 (West 1996). The Act provides for certain exceptions to the notice requirement when:

“(1) the minor or incompetent person is accompanied by a person entitled to notice; or

(2) notice is waived in writing by a person who is entitled to notice; or

(3) the attending physician certifies in the patient's medical record that a medical emergency exists and there is insufficient time to provide the required notice; or

(4) the minor declares in writing that she is a victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by an adult family member as defined in this Act. The attending physician must certify in the patient's medical record that he or she has received the written declaration of abuse or neglect. Any notification of public authorities of abuse that may be required under other laws of this State need not be made by the person performing the abortion until after the minor receives an...