Reprod Freedom News. 1994 Jul 22;3(14):2-3.
On July 15 (1994), Wayne County Circuit Court Judge John Murphy struck down Michigan's 1993 law requiring women seeking abortions to delay 24 hours after receiving state-mandated information. Finding that the Michigan Constitution encompasses a right to privacy, which includes the right to choose abortion, Judge Murphy invalidated the never-enforced law by applying "strict scrutiny"--the judicial standard used to review restrictions on fundamental rights. Although Roe v. Wade established strict scrutiny as the test for evaluating abortion restrictions, the US Supreme Court revised that standard as a matter of federal law when it adopted the less protective "undue burden" standard in Planned Parenthood v. Carey. As a result, the state constitutional right to privacy recognized by Judge Murphy is more protective of childbearing decisions than the corresponding federal right. Judge Murphy further found that the mandatory delay law violates a state constitutional prohibition on unfunded mandates because, while local health departments would be required to distribute the state-printed materials, the legislature did not appropriate monies to cover the costs of this added responsibility. Michigan officials have indicated that they will appeal the decision in Mahaffey v. Attorney General of Michigan, which is 1 of 2 lawsuits that were filed on March 10 against the mandatory delay law. Plaintiffs in the state case--a local health department official and 3 physicians--are represented by the ACLU of Michigan. CRLP attorneys represent more than 2 dozen reproductive health care providers who filed the other challenge, Northland Family Planning Inc. v. Engler, in federal court and obtained a temporary stay of the law. During 4 days of trial beginning on June 20, CRLP presented witnesses who testifed that the mandatory delay law would impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions in Michigan. As a result of Judge Murphy's ruling, CRLP federal case will be put on hold. However, should either the Michigan Court of Appeals or the Michigan Supreme Court reverse Judge Murphy's ruling and order the law enforced, the federal case would again become active.
1994年7月15日，韦恩县巡回法院法官约翰·墨菲推翻了密歇根州1993年的一项法律，该法律要求寻求堕胎的女性在收到州政府规定的信息后延迟24小时。墨菲法官认定，密歇根州宪法包含隐私权，其中包括选择堕胎的权利，他通过适用“严格审查”——用于审查对基本权利限制的司法标准，使这项从未实施过的法律无效。尽管罗诉韦德案确立了严格审查作为评估堕胎限制的标准，但美国最高法院在计划生育协会诉凯里案中采用了保护性较弱的“不当负担”标准，从而将该标准修订为联邦法律事项。因此，墨菲法官所认可的州宪法隐私权对生育决定的保护比相应的联邦权利更强。墨菲法官还认定，强制延迟法律违反了州宪法关于无资金授权的禁令，因为虽然当地卫生部门将被要求分发州政府印制的材料，但立法机构并未拨款支付这项新增责任的费用。密歇根州官员表示，他们将对马哈菲诉密歇根州总检察长案的判决提起上诉，这是3月10日针对强制延迟法律提起的两起诉讼之一。该州案件的原告——一名当地卫生部门官员和三名医生——由密歇根州美国公民自由联盟代理。CRLP律师代表二十多名生殖保健提供者，他们在联邦法院提起了另一项挑战，即北国计划生育公司诉恩格勒案，并获得了该法律的临时延缓执行。在6月20日开始的为期四天的审判中，CRLP提供了证人，他们证明强制延迟法律将给密歇根州寻求堕胎的女性带来不当负担。由于墨菲法官的裁决，CRLP的联邦案件将被搁置。然而，如果密歇根上诉法院或密歇根最高法院推翻墨菲法官的裁决并下令执行该法律，联邦案件将再次启动。
