Planned Parenthood Minnesota, et al. v. Alpha Center, et al., No. 09-3231 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlanned Parenthood brought this equitable action against the Governor and Attorney General of South Dakota in their official capacities, seeking to enjoin enforcement of revisions enacted in 2005 to the South Dakota law on informed consent to abortion. The court held that because Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds upheld the human being advisory against a facial challenge, the district court did not err in doing the same in this case. The court also held that the district court erred in holding the relationship advisories unconstitutional where they could be constitutionally applied to a "large fraction" of the women to whom they were relevant. The court further held that the district court did not err in granting Planned Parenthood summary judgment as to the suicide advisory where it violated due process and doctors' First Amendment right to be free from compelled speech that was untruthful, misleading, or irrelevant. The court finally held that the district court did not err in upholding the risk advisory where Planned Parenthood had not shown that the risk advisory would cause confusion in any case, let alone the quantum of cases required to sustain a facial challenge.
Court Description: Civil case - South Dakota Abortion Law. For the court en banc's earlier decision in the matter, see Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008). This action involves facial challenges to the constitutionality of South Dakota's 2005 law on informed consent to abortion. The court en banc's opinion upheld the law's human being advisory against a facial challenge, and the portion of the district court's decision reaching the same conclusion is affirmed; the statute's provision requiring doctors to tell the woman that she has a relationship with the fetus and that the relationship enjoys legal protection is valid, and the district court erred in finding it unconstitutional; the portion of the general risk advisory section requiring doctors to inform women that suicide and suicide ideation are risks of the procedure is not supported by any record showing a generally recognized connection between suicide and abortion, and the section is an unconstitutional violation of doctors' First Amendment rights since it would impose a significant constraint on exercise of their professional judgment and compel untruthful and misleading speech; the portions of the section requiring doctors to give a general risk advisory was valid. Judge Gruender, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 24, 2012.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.