The Oklahoma attorney general's office has filed an appeal and plans to argue before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a recently overturned state abortion law that imposed financial liability on abortion providers who do not notify the parents of minors seeking abortion is not a "parental notification law" at all and thus should not be subject to the same constitutionality requirements as other state laws, the Tulsa World reports. Guy Hurst, head of litigation for Attorney General Drew Edmondson (D), said that "despite the commonly accepted name of the measure" in the media, Oklahoma's law cannot be considered a true parental notification law because it does not "mandate notice to parents" (Boczkiewicz, Tulsa World, 7/13). Unlike most states' parental notification laws, which require that abortion providers notify a minor's parents prior to performing an abortion, the Oklahoma law holds physicians who do not provide such notification financially liable for the costs associated with any additional medical care that a minor may require as a result of the procedure. On June 14, U.S. District Judge Claire Eagan struck down the Oklahoma law, stating that the statute did not adhere to constitutionality guidelines previously set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court requiring that parental consent and notification laws for abortion contain both a judicial bypass option and a medical emergency exception (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 7/2). However, Hurst stated that the precedent in this case is not applicable to Oklahoma's law, adding, "[T]here's a Supreme Court decision on what a parental notification law has to look like, and this one doesn't."

Other Appeal Arguments
According to the appeal filed recently with the federal court in Denver, the state plans to argue that there is no evidence to suggest that state officials "ever would have enforced the law." The appeal will also include arguments that Nova Health Systems, which provides abortions in Tulsa and originally filed suit against the state, should not have been allowed to bring the suit because it "hadn't yet been harmed by the law." The Tulsa World reports that if Nova is not "an injured party" in the case, it may not "have legal standing" to bring the suit. The appeal will also contend that the lawsuit was improperly filed in the wrong court district of Oklahoma. The outcome of the case is not expected until next year (Tulsa World, 7/13).