Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region, Inc. v. Nixon
Supreme Court of Missouri
1Per curiam
I.Introduction
Section 188.039, RSMo Supp.2003, creates an informed consent requirement including a 24-hour waiting period before elective abortions may be performed in Missouri. Planned Parenthood argues that the act is unconstitutional for vagueness. Planned Parenthood also argues that the 24-hour waiting provision violates rights of liberty and privacy under the Missouri Constitution. All of Planned Parenthood’s federal claims have been reserved for adjudication in federal court. This case only concerns Planned Parenthood’s facial claims under the Missouri Constitution.
Planned Parenthood…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Schloendorff v. Society of the New York HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Pratt v. DavisIllinois Supreme Court · 1906
- Asbury v. LombardiSupreme Court of Missouri · 1993
- Westin Crown Plaza Hotel Co. v. KingSupreme Court of Missouri · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Sarah Tupper, Respondents/Cross-Appellants v. City of St. Louis, Appellants/Cross-Respondents.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2015
- State v. FaruqiSupreme Court of Missouri · 2011
- Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. and Jill Meadows v. Iowa Board of MedicineSupreme Court of Iowa · 2015
- Cannon v. CannonSupreme Court of Missouri · 2009
- Dydell v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 2011
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.