Ohio Appeals Court Rules Clinic Does Not Have To Provide All Minors' Abortion Records

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Pediatrics / Children's Health;  Litigation / Medical Malpractice;  Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 30 Aug 2007 - 6:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

A three-judge panel of the 1st Ohio District Court of Appeals on Friday unanimously ruled that a Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region clinic does not have to provide all records of abortions given to women under 18 to lawyers of a family who is suing the clinic for violating the state's parental notification law, the Cincinnati Enquirer reports (Coolidge, Cincinnati Enquirer, 8/24). Ohio law requires unmarried minors to obtain the consent of at least one parent before undergoing abortion and requires women seeking abortion to meet with a physician at least 24 hours before the procedure to hear a description of the process, its risks and alternatives. The law allows minors to seek a judicial bypass (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 11/15/06).

A family identified as John and Joan Roe in March 2005 filed a lawsuit alleging that a 21-year-old man who impregnated their daughter took her to a PPSOR clinic in Cincinnati and said he was her stepbrother. The lawsuit alleges that the clinic performed an abortion without notifying the girl's parents. According to the Enquirer, physician Roslyn Kade, PPSOR and six unknown people are named as defendants in the case (Cincinnati Enquirer, 8/24).

The lawsuit seeks records of abortions provided to other minors going back 10 years in an effort to reveal that the clinic had a pattern of violating the law, the AP/Cincinnati Post reports (Sewell, AP/Cincinnati Post, 8/24). Hamilton County Common Please Judge Patrick Dinkelacker in June 2006 agreed to the request (Cincinnati Enquirer, 8/24).

Ruling, Reaction
The three-judge panel ruled that the other minors' records were not necessary for the lawsuit, which it said was about whether PPSOR violated its legal duties to the girl's parents by performing the abortion without parental consent. Judge Mark Painter in the decision wrote, "The potential invasion of privacy rights trumps the probative value of the records to this case." He added that even if the patients' names were blacked out, "it is arguable that disclosure would result in a privacy invasion."

In the decision, the panel wrote that it found no reason to let the plaintiffs act as "private attorneys general," adding that the state could conduct such investigations. "The facts and evidence nowhere indicate that Planned Parenthood systematically and intentionally evaded its statutory duties," the panel wrote.

Brian Hurley, attorney for the family, said they will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court, adding that the records would refute PPSOR's claim that it always follows notification and reporting laws. "Our clients have alleged that they were harmed because Planned Parenthood has a pattern and practice of violating its duties under Ohio law to report sexual abuse of minors and notify parents of minors of their daughters' intent to have an abortion, not as a result of a single, isolated incident," Hurley said.

Becki Brenner, president and CEO for PPSOR, said the earlier order was intrusive to highly personal and private information. She added, "This [ruling] is a victory for patients and their right to medical privacy" (AP/Cincinnati Post, 8/24).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations