LAS VEGAS (CN) - Planned Parenthood Mar Monte won't get to pause a Nevada law requiring minors get parental approval or a judge's order to get an abortion.

Clark County Eighth Judicial District Judge Erika Mendoza ruled Friday that the law - also called Senate Bill 510 and was recently revived after being passed in 1985 - would stand.

An issue in the case is whether the law is vague on how a minor should obtain what the reproductive health organization has called "a hazy, inadequate judicial bypass process." It's also argued the law is unconstitutional.

Bradley Schrager, representing Planned Parenthood, had argued Mendoza should issue a preliminary injunction freezing the law. His clients, who also include an unnamed doctor, face the threat of prosecution under the statute.

"Plaintiffs have not established a likelihood of success on several arguments due to preliminary question of standing and ripeness," the judge said in her ruling. "Moreover, plaintiffs have not established an injunction is necessary to avoid irreparable harm."

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 a judicial bypass process.

Planned Parenthood tried a handful of different paths to pause the law.

Arguing the law was vague, Planned Parenthood said that no standards existed for a doctor to determine a patient's married or emancipated status. The law also didn't define "reasonable effort" at making personal notification.

"In the vast majority of cases, the patient will be able to provide contact information to notify a parent," Mendoza said. "While plaintiffs argue 'reasonable efforts' is vague, such is unpersuasive as such only becomes an issue if the parent cannot be notified and, in that event the statute provides specific direction as to the next steps to avoid criminal liability."

Planned Parenthood also argued that, without an injunction, they'd suffer harm by facing uncertain legal obligations and the threat of arbitrary prosecution.

One potential harm it pointed to was a delay caused by the failure of the judicial bypass process. But Mendoza said that Planned Parenthood didn't show that the process wasn't working.  

"Plaintiffs have not identified a specific patient who attempted to pursue the judicial bypass procedure or whose plans have stalled as a result of the parental notice and/or judicial bypass procedure," the judge added.

Planned Parenthood, taking a different road, also argued that the law was unconstitutional when it was created, as Roe v. Wade was the law of the land in 1985.

However, Mendoza noted that 2022's Dobbs decision overturned Roe, meaning the foundation for Senate Bill 510's unconstitutionality no longer exists.

The judge also issued a handful of rulings about whether Planned Parenthood has standing to file suit.

While it does have standing to challenge the parental notice part of the law on behalf of itself, it doesn't have that standing to attack the judicial bypass provision, Mendoza said. Also, she noted it has no standing to challenge provisions on behalf of its patients - meaning it can't argue the judicial bypass provision for those patients.

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, leading the plaintiffs to file suit in July in state court.

Attorneys for both sides couldn't be reached for comment by publication time.

Source: Courthouse News Service