applying “direct, immediate and substantial” test to determine that physician who practices medicine in state of Oklahoma has standing to challenge abortion regulations
How later courts described this case
- applying “direct, immediate and substantial” test to determine that physician who practices medicine in state of Oklahoma has standing to challenge abortion regulations
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KAUGER, Chief Justice,
concurring in result, with whom OPALA, J., joins:
The challengers/appellees have failed to present any credible evidence that requiring abortions to be performed in a hospital after the first trimester is cost prohibitive, causes an undue burden and amounts to “a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion” under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. 1 Without any evidence in the record before this Court, a determination that the statutes 2 are invalid may not be based on speculation. 3 Based on the facts — and the lack thereof — before us, I concur in the result of the majority’s opinion.
. 505 U.S. 833, 884 , 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2824 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992).
. 63 O.S.1991 §§ 1-731 and 1-737.
. Mazurek v. Armstrong, — U.S. —, —-—, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 1867-68 , 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 884-886, 901 , 112 S.Ct. 2791, 2824-2825, 2832 , 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992); A Woman's Choice-East Side Women's Clinic v. Newman, 904 F.Supp. 1434, 1448 (S.D.Ind.1995).