LAS VEGAS (CN) - Planned Parenthood Mar Monte on Monday took aim at a Nevada law, passed 40 years ago by lawmakers, that severely restricts a minor's ability to obtain an abortion.

The California-based nonprofit and an unnamed Nevada doctor say this law, unenforced since its 1985 passage, is on the precipice of implementation, leading to their lawsuit in Clark County's Eighth Judicial District.

The plaintiffs write that two district attorneys have argued the law - called Senate Bill 510 and held by courts as unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade - should be enforced in the wake of the 2023 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. That latter decision overturned the constitutional right to abortion, leaving the issue to the states.

The Nevada law requires the parent or guardian of an unmarried or unemancipated minor to receive notification before the minor can have an abortion. Alternatively, the minor can get an abortion if they navigate what plaintiffs call "a hazy, inadequate judicial bypass process."

"Accordingly, it is fundamentally unclear how any patient seeking a judicial bypass order may practically do so across the state of Nevada at this time," the plaintiffs write.

The plaintiffs argue that's one reason an Eighth Judicial District judge should issue an injunction, which would stop the law's implementation.

The issue already has been before a federal judge in Nevada, who vacated the longstanding injunction that stopped Senate Bill 510's enactment. The lower court ruled that Dobbs removed any federal due process right to abortion.

The Ninth Circuit opted against a stay pending appeal that would have maintained the status quo. According to the plaintiffs, that means Senate Bill 510 will become effective imminently without the Eighth Judicial District becoming involved.

The plaintiffs in their suit hammer the judicial bypass portion of the law. They say no guidance or rules exist to govern that process or how judges would adjudicate the requests. Additionally, it's unknown when the state will create those processes.

Pivoting to the parental notification aspect, the plaintiffs write that doctors must delay the procedure to meet the law's requirements of personally notifying a parent or guardian of a minor seeking an abortion. Alternatively, doctors must make reasonable efforts to notify parents before resorting to certified mail.

The plaintiffs note that minors facing parental abuse, or in state custody through its foster care system, aren't exempt from the notification requirement.

"The only statutory alternative is if an abortion is authorized through a judicial bypass process exempting them from the parental notification requirement," the plaintiffs write.

They also argue that existing laws trump Senate Bill 510's provisions.

A 1990 voter referendum set criteria for when abortions may occur. Only another referendum could change it, and that statute has no restrictions on a minor's right to abortion, they write.

Additionally, the Legislature in 2019 passed the Trust Nevada Women Act. That act decriminalized medication abortion, along with eliminating informed consent laws tied to accessing reproductive health care.

It also repealed the provisions in Senate Bill 510 that a federal judge opted against putting on hold.

"Nevada also has enacted provisions to protect patient and health care provider safety, data privacy policies for patients seeking reproductive health care, and protections against pregnancy discrimination more broadly," the plaintiffs write.

A majority of teens will include their parents in a decision about abortion. The small number of those who don't have good reasons for it, which typically are linked to safety and well-being. Many who opt against talking to their parents speak to a trusted adult, plaintiffs argue.

"The parental notification and judicial bypass provisions' requirements, by operation, will delay abortion access for patients subjected to the statute resulting in increased medical risks, physical and psychological harms, particularly if the delays result in forcing a minor to continue carrying a pregnancy to term against their will," the plaintiffs write.

Neither the plaintiffs' attorneys nor the attorney general's office could be reached for comment by email after business hours on Monday.

Source: Courthouse News Service