— A 22 year old woman’s struggle to exercise her legal right to an abortion continues to be stymied by the legal system as the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg refuses to immediately dissolve an injunction preventing her from obtaining an abortion. Ignoring the emergency nature of the appeal as well as clear federal and Pennsylvania law addressing the issue, the Court instead directed the other side to file a brief by noon on Tuesday, August 6, 2002. Based on the Superior Court’s refusal to dissolve the injunction, the Center for Reproductive Rights today filed an Emergency Appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The Supreme Court has just denied that Emergency Appeal without prejudice.
"My client has the constitutional right to obtain an abortion and each delay in this process illegally undermines that right," said Linda Rosenthal, a staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights and lead counsel on the case. "It is unbelievable that this travesty has now been sanctioned at all levels of the Pennsylvania Courts, but we remain determined to bring the rule of law back to Pennsylvania and put an end to our client’s needless suffering," added Rosenthal.
The case began on Monday when a trial court issued an injunction after the woman’s abusive ex-boyfriend, John Stachokus, filed a lawsuit to force her to carry her pregnancy to term. At the subsequent hearing on Wednesday, Judge Conahan ordered the attorneys to submit additional legal papers, postponing the woman’s procedure indefinitely and putting her health in jeopardy.
On Thursday, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed an Emergency Appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg requesting the court to dissolve the injunction. But instead of ruling on the case, the Superior Court has asked Stachokus’ attorneys to file additional briefing papers on Tuesday. It was hoped that the Center for Reproductive Rights' Emergency Appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would accelerate the process, but Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court denied the appeal, although it left the door open to appeal at a later date.
The Pennsylvania woman, a mother of a two-year-old, considered all of her options before making the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Her former boyfriend, John Stachokus, repeatedly threatened her physical safety and as a result there is a Temporary Protection from Abuse Order in effect against him.
U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishes that a pregnant woman’s right to privacy precludes anyone from preventing her from terminating a pregnancy prior to viability of the fetus. In 1976, the Court first held that a statute requiring spousal consent before a woman could obtain an abortion violated the right to choose previously established in Roe v. Wade. The Court reiterated its ruling in the 1992 Casey decision and emphasized that the man’s interest in the fetus could never outweigh the pregnant woman’s liberty interest.
Representing the respondent in the case Stachokus v. Meyers are Linda Rosenthal and Adrienne Lockie of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and local counsel Brian Cali. The Women's Law Project is co-counsel in the case.
