WPC #  UN % 0e4# 0cW b w@4Rf^ u m 0D 0J 0T( 0^| 0h 0rB 0| 08 0 1uN 0d('U0>OV[u&" B 1! 1m! 0c"uk"}#v]%s&uF(s)^ .+:+ m<+NS+[U+/;1 3558e:G<>j}@NBBE3GJL&4N 0wZQ)Q;S:5UoVXZ\L^<_I:aIbJcfjotv"Zx7|{|1C~6t-ׂ0Ն& ֍jVgEbdh W w8gS;82GyTZv$ŷ92ySGNdsT1hdv~8vHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl'"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular( U$  (c(2~$ U!   XX~X `   0  - - [=P\=]=D^= P_=`=a=Pb=Ec=d=P~%oe3|xd=G$HU(#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23   2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  %'( ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` Xprocreational<  9p`(&Times New Roman  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _See,e.g.,Thornburghv.AmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologists,476U.S.747,764,106S.Ct.2169,2180(1986)(invalidatingarequirementofmandatorypreabortioncounselingbyaphysicianusingstateprescribedmaterialsdiscouragingabortion);CityofAkronv.AkronCtr.forReproductiveHealth,462U.S.416,43739,44951,103S.Ct.2481,249697,250203(1983)(invalidating24hourwaitingperiodsandrequirementsthatabortionsbeperformedinhospitalsafterthefirsttrimester);PlannedParenthoodv.Danforth,428U.S.52,6971,7475,96S.Ct.2831,284142,284344(1976)(invalidating_spousal_Ԁconsentrequirementsandparentalvetoes). L !#d#FF   $   X FX       _See,e.g.,Websterv.ReproductiveHealth_Servs_.,492U.S.490,50711,109S.Ct.3040,305053(1989);_Poelker_Ԁv.Doe,432U.S.519,521,97S.Ct.2391,2392(1977);_Maher_v.Roe,432U.S.464,474,97S.Ct.2376,238283(1977). k !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMar.23,1883,ch.140,1883Tenn.Pub.Acts188(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.39301(amended1973)).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMay14,1973,ch.235,1973Tenn.Pub.Acts901(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.39301(Supp.1973)).Thisstatutepermittedabortionsperformedduringthefirstthreemonthsofpregnancywiththewomansconsentandpursuanttothemedicaljudgmentofherattendingphysician.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.39301(e)(1).Italsopermittedabortionsafterthreemonthsbutbeforeviabilityiftheywereperformedinahospitalwiththewomansconsentandpursuanttothemedicaljudgmentofthewomansphysician.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.39301(e)(2).Finally,thestatutepermittedabortionduringviabilityiftherequirementsofTenn.CodeAnn.39301(e)(2)weremetandifthewomansphysiciancertifiedinwritingtothehospitalandthedistrictattorneygeneralthattheabortionwasnecessarytopreservethelifeorhealthofthemother.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.39301(e)(3).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeTenn.CodeAnn.39301(f). d CEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(a)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)d#%37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;3$2%  0  .3  0   k !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMar.1,1974,ch.471,1974Tenn.Pub.Acts156(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.39301(c)(Supp.1974)). s !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMar.20,1978,ch.811,1978Tenn.Pub.Acts925(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.39306,307(Supp.1978)). l !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMar.23,1978,ch.847,1978Tenn.Pub.Acts1078(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.39302(d)(Supp.1978)). i !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofApr.30,1979,ch.287,1979Tenn.Pub.Acts590(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.39302(Supp.1979)). k !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMay10,1979,ch.334,1979Tenn.Pub.Acts762(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.39302(f)(Supp.1979)). i !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofApr.19,1979,ch.183,1979Tenn.Pub.Acts317,(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.39308(Supp.1979)).n$ U Q !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofApr.28,1988,ch.929,1988Tenn.Pub.Acts.868(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3710301,307(Supp.1988)).TheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennesseeheldthatthisstatutewasunconstitutional.SeePlannedParenthood_Assn_ԀofNashville,Inc.v._McWherter_,716F.Supp.1064(M.D.Tenn.1989).However,theUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuitlatervacatedthisdecisionaftertheTennesseeSupremeCourtheldthatthe1988parentalnotificationstatuteshadbeenrepealedbyimplication.SeePlannedParenthood_Assn_ԀofNashville,Inc.v._McWherter_,945F.2d405,1991WL193471(6thCir.1991)(Sept.30,1991)(unpublishedtabledecision).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMay24,1989,ch.412,1989Tenn.Pub.Acts697(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3710304(g)(Supp.1989));Tenn.S.Ct.R.24.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMay24,1989,ch.591,1989Tenn.Pub.Acts1169(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3915201,208(Supp.1989)).CompareTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(f)(Supp.1989)withTenn.CodeAnn.394202(f)(1982).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _ThissuitwaslatertransferredtotheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountywhereitwasstayedandheldinabeyancependingtheoutcomeofthislitigation.SeeEmancipationv._McWherter_,No.922221II(DavidsonChan.OrderfiledApril21,1993).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Specifically,theplaintiffschallengedtherequirementinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(2)thatabortions afterthree(3)months,butbeforeviabilityofthefetusbeperformedin ahospitalasdefinedin6811201;theprohibitionagainstattemptingtoprocureamiscarriageinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(b)(2);theresidencyrequirementinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(d);therequirementinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b),(c)thataphysicianprovidestatemandatedpreabortioninformation;thewaitingperiodrequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(d);andtheparentalnotificationprocedureinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(f)(Supp.1989). | !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMay26,1995,ch.458,1995Tenn.Pub.Acts799(codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3710301,307(1996&Supp.1997)).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Inamemorandumelaboratingonitsfirstopinion,thetrialcourtobservedthat eachprovisionofthestatutewhichwassalvagedbytheCourtisobviouslyenforceableonlyasinterpretedbytheCourtintheprecedingopinion. z !#d#FF   $   X FX       _ThetrialcourtdesignatedfourphysiciansascourtappointedexpertsinaccordancewithTenn.R._Evid_.706.Thetwophysicianswhotestifiedinsupportofthestatutesconstitutionalityhadtriedunsuccessfullytointerveneaspartiesbeforethetrial.ThetwophysicianswhoopposedthestatuteswereexpertsretainedbythePlannedParenthoodplaintiffs.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeAmericanCollegeofObstetricians&Gynecologists,StandardsforObstetricGynecologicServices(7thed.1989)( _ACOG_ԀStandards).planned parenthood - opinion  3 '  0 .     !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Specifically,thetrialcourtrecommendedthattheGeneralAssembly(1)amendthedefinitionof hospitalinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(2)toincludeambulatorysurgicalcentersand(2)amendthejudicialbypassprovisionintheparentalnotificationstatutetorequireasecondphysiciansopinion.ThetrialcourtwasalsopreparedtoappointoneoftheStatesexpertwitnessestopreparea modelcoderelatingtoinformedconsentforabortionsinTennessee.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Tenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)(Supp.1989)iscurrentlycodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(g)(1997)asaresultoftherepealofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(f)in1995. ) !#d#FF   $   X FX       _WeneednotconsiderthetrialcourtsconstructionofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(f)(1)or202(f)(2)(B)becausetheseprovisionswererepealedbyimplicationin1989.SeePlannedParenthood_Assn_ԀofNashville,Inc.v._McWherter_,817S.W.2dat16.ThetrialcourtsconstructionofthesetwoprovisionshasnobearingontheinterpretationorenforcementoftheparentalconsentprovisionsinTenn.CodeAnn.3710301,307whichwererevivedbytheGeneralAssemblyin1995.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Theterm physicianincludesonlypersonslicensedtopracticemedicineorsurgeryinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.636201(1997)andpersonslicensedasosteopathicphysiciansinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.639101,114(1997). z !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Thesetwodatesaredifferentsinceconceptioncanoccurapproximatelytwoweeksafterthefirstdayofawomanslastmenstrualperiod.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Tenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)statesthatawomanmustbeinformedof thefollowingfactsandthenliststhesix factsthatmustbeprovided.Thisconstructionmeansthatthewomanmustbeinformedofeachofthelistedfacts.However,theconjunction ormayhaveeitheraninclusiveoranexclusivesense.SeeBryanA.Garner,ADictionaryofModernLegalUsage624(2ded.1995).If orisinterpretedinitsexclusivesense,itwouldbeinconsistentwiththeprovisionsapparentinclusivemeaning.(O.<$0  2%  a  .3  0` (#(#  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMay4,1973,ch.235,1(e)(2),1973Tenn.Pub.Acts901,903,allowingabortions [_a]fter_Ԁthree(3)months,butbeforeviabilityofthefetus,iftheabortion...isperformed...inahospitalasdefinedinSection531301ofthisCode. 1 !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofFeb.25,1976,ch.471,1976Tenn.Pub.Acts185. 0 !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMar.15,1979,ch.77,1979Tenn.Pub.Acts123.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Tenn.CodeAnn.6811201(3)statesthatpatientsatanambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcentermustbeeitherdischargedinambulatoryconditionortransferredtoahospital.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Tenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.r.07202.01(2)(1994)definesanambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcenteras anyinstitution,placeorbuildingdevotedprimarilytotheperformanceofsurgicalproceduresonanoutpatientbasis.Thedefinitionof hospitalinTenn.Comp.R.&_Regs_.r.07202.01(9)(1995)simplyreferstothedefinitioninTenn.CodeAnn.6811201(21).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Tenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)(Supp.1989)iscurrentlycodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(g)(1997).Sincethestatutessubstancehasremainedunchanged,wewillcontinuetorefertoitasTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h),asdidthetrialcourt.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _TheCourtexplainedinacompanioncasetoRoev.Wadethattheterm healthencompassesawomanspsychologicalaswellasphysicalwellbeing.SeeDoev.Bolton,410U.S.179,192,93S.Ct.739,747(1973). B !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMay4,1973,ch.235,1(e)(3),1973Tenn.Pub.Acts901,903. 2 !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofMar.23,1978,ch.847,1978Tenn.Pub.Acts1078. ? !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofApril30,1979,ch.287,3,1979Tenn.Pub.Acts590,591. ? !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeActofApril30,1979,ch.287,4,1979Tenn.Pub.Acts590,591. @ !#d#FF   $   X FX       _WomenundertheageofeighteenyearsofagemaycircumventtheparentalconsentrequirementsinTenn.CodeAnn.3710303iftheirphysiciandeterminesinhisorherbestmedicaljudgmentthat amedicalemergencyexiststhatsocomplicatesthepregnancyastorequireanimmediateabortion.Tenn.CodeAnn.3710305.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _TheCongressenactedH.R.1833,the PartialBirthAbortionBanActof1995"whichwouldhavelimitedpartialbirthabortionstocircumstanceswheretheywerenecessarytosavethelifeofthemother.DuringtheUnitedStatesSenatesdebateoveranamendmentproposedbySenatorBoxerthatwouldhavepermittedpartialbirthabortionstoprotectthemothershealth,SenatorSmithpointedoutthattheamendmentwouldbetopermitpartialbirthabortionsondemand.See141Cong.Rec.S18,074(dailyed.Dec.6,1995)(statementofSenatorSmith).Theamendmentfailed,andthePresidentvetoedH.R.1833onApril10,1996.ThePresidentstatedinhisvetomessagethathewouldsignthebillifitcontainedanexceptionfor serioushealthconsequences.MessagetotheHouseofRepresentativesReturningWithoutApprovalPartialBirthAbortionLegislation,1Pub.Papers567,568(April10,1996);seealso142Cong.Rec.H333801(April15,1996).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasspecificallyheldthatseveralprovisionsoftheConstitutionofTennesseeprovidebroaderprotectionthantheirfederalcounterparts.See,e.g.,Statev.Marshall,859S.W.2d289,29091,29495(Tenn.1993)(holdingthatthestateconstitutionprovidesbroaderprotectionforspeechthantheFirstandFourteenthAmendments);Statev.Black,815S.W.2d166,189,19293(Tenn.1991)(holdingthatthestateconstitutionprovidesdifferentstandardsfordeterminingwhatconstitutescruelandunusualpunishment);Statev._Jacumin_,778S.W.2d430,43536(Tenn.1989)(holdingthatTenn.Const.art.I,7requiresdifferentstandardsforobtainingasearchwarrantthandoestheFourthAmendment);Millerv.State,584S.W.2d758,75961(Tenn.1979)(holdingthattheExPostFactoClauseofTenn.Const.art.I,11providesgreaterprotectionthantheExPostFactoClauseinU.S.Const.art.I,10,cl.1).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SomecommentatorshavesuggestedthatthesedecisionsrepresenteffortsbystatejudgestocircumventtheperceivedconservatismoftheBurgerandRehnquistCourts.SeePaulM.Bator,TheStateCourtandFederalConstitutionalLiberties,22_Wm_.&MaryL.Rev.605,606n.1(1981);OtisH.Stephens,Jr.,TheTennesseeConstitutionandtheDynamicsofAmericanFederalism,61Tenn.L.Rev.707,708(1994);Alan_Tarr_,ConstitutionalTheoryandStateConstitutionalInterpretation,22Rutgers_L.J._Ԁ841,84547(1991).Ontheotherhand,defendersofthesedecisionsrestorestateconstitutionstotheirproperplaceinthecontinuingconstitutionaldialogue.SeeKahn,106_Harv_.L.Rev.at1154;FredericS.Le_Clercq_,TheProcessofSelectingConstitutionalStandards:SomeIncongruitiesofTennesseePractice,61Tenn.L.Rev.573,58692(1994).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeJamesA.Gardner,TheFailedDiscourseofStateConstitutionalism,90Mich.L.Rev.761,763(1992);DavidSchuman,AFailedCritiqueofStateConstitutionalism,91Mich.L.Rev.274,276(1992).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _See_Neely_Ԁv.State,63Tenn.174,185(1874);_Eason_Ԁv.State,65Tenn.466,477(1873).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeMetropolitan_Govt_Ԁv.TennesseeStateBd.ofEqualization,817S.W.2d953,955(Tenn.1991);_Luehrman_Ԁv.TaxingDist.,70Tenn.425,438(1879)(statingthatthecourtssearchformeaningofconstitutionalprovisionsshouldnotbeguidedbythejudgesownsubjectivenotionsofunexpressedconstitutionalintent);Stateexrel._Witcher_Ԁv._Bilbrey_,878S.W.2d567,573(Tenn.Ct.App.1994). - !#d#FF   $   X FX       TheTennesseeSupremeCourtheardoralargumentinthiscaseonApril2,1998.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeGaskinv.Collins,661S.W.2d865,867(Tenn.1983);_Hatcher_Ԁv.Bell,521S.W.2d799,803(Tenn.1974). ' !#d#FF   $   X FX       _See_Ashe_Ԁv.Leech,653S.W.2d398,401(Tenn.1983);_Peay_Ԁv.Nolan,157Tenn.222,230,7S.W.2d815,817(1928);Popev._Phifer_,50Tenn.(3_Heisk_.)682,687(1871). , !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeWilliamsv.TaxingDist.,84Tenn.531,535(1886). # !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeStatev.Wilson,80Tenn.246,265(1883).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeStateexrel.Cohenv._Darnell_,885S.W.2d61,63(Tenn.1994);TheJudgesCases,102Tenn.509,51920,53_S.W._Ԁ134,136(1899). & !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeStatev.Marshall,859S.W.2dat303(Reid,C.J.,concurringanddissenting);_Paty_v._McDaniel_,547S.W.2d897,902(Tenn.1977),_revd_Ԁonothergrounds,435U.S.618,98S.Ct.1322(1978).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeStatev.Marshall,859S.W.2dat29294;CumberlandCapitalCorp.v.Patty,556S.W.2d516,519(Tenn.1977);_Stoots_Ԁv.State,205Tenn.59,69,325S.W.2d532,536(1959).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _ThecourtsdiscussionofthelibertyclausescenteredonTenn.Const.art.1,2,3,7,19,and27.ReferringtoTenn.Const.art.I,1and2,thecourtobservedthattheConstitutionofTennesseeistheonlystateconstitutionthatgivesthepeopletherighttoresistgovernmentaloppressioneventotheextentofoverthrowingthegovernment.SeeDavisv.Davis,842S.W.2dat599.Infact,Tenn.Const.art.I,1and2werederivedfromMd.Dec.ofRightsof1776,art.IVandN.H.Const.of1784,pt.I,art.Xandarenotunique.Currently,theconstitutionsofthirtyonestatescontainprovisionssecuringthepoliticalrightsofthepeople.See,e.g.,Ala.Const.,art.I,2;Ga.Const.,art.I,2,2;Ky.Const.,BillofRights4;Mass.Const.,Dec.ofRights,art.VII;N.C.Const.,art.I,2;Va.Const.,art.I,3.TwootherstateconstitutionscontainprovisionssimilartoTenn.Const.art.I,2.SeeMd.Const.,Dec.ofRights,art.6;N.H.Const.,pt.I,art.10.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeSteinv.DavidsonHotelCo.,945S.W.2d714,71718(Tenn.1997);InreAdoptionofFemaleChild,896S.W.2d546,54748(Tenn.1995);_Nale_Ԁv.Robertson,871S.W.2d674,680(Tenn.1994);Hawkv.Hawk,855S.W.2d573,577(Tenn.1993). !#d#FF   $   X FX       Seesupranote53. ` !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeThornburghv.AmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologists,476U.S.at764,106S.Ct.at2180. L !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeePlannedParenthoodv.Danforth,428U.S.52,6971,96S.Ct.2831,284142(1976). ; !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeePlannedParenthoodv.Danforth,428U.S.at74,96S.Ct.at2843. X !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeCityofAkronv.AkronCtr.forReproductiveHealth,462U.S.at44951,103S.Ct.at250203.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeePlannedParenthoodv.Ashcroft,462U.S.476,48182,103S.Ct.2517,2520(1983);CityofAkronv.AkronCtr.forReproductiveHealth,462U.S.at43739,103S.Ct.at249697. ^ !#d#FF   $   X FX       _ThejointopinionisthecontrollingopinioninthecasebecauseitembodiesthepositionofthemembersoftheCourtwhoconcurredonthenarrowestgrounds.SeeMarksv.UnitedStates,430U.S.188,193,97S.Ct.990,993(1977);Greggv.Georgia,428U.S.153,169n.15,96S.Ct.2909,2923n.15(1976)(opinionofStewart,Powell,andStevens,JJ.).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Accordingtothejointopinion,thethreeessentialholdingsofRoev.Wadewere:(1)therecognitionofawomansrighttochoosetohaveanabortionbeforeviabilityandtoobtainitwithoutundueinterferencefromthestate,(2)confirmationofthestatespowertorestrictabortionsafterfetalviabilityifthelawcontainsemergencymedicalexceptionstoprotectthelifeandhealthofthewoman,and(3)recognitionthatthestatehaslegitimateinterestsfromtheonsetofpregnancyinprotectingthehealthofthewomanandthelifeofthefetusthatmaybecomeachild.SeePlannedParenthoodv.Casey,505U.S.at846,112S.Ct.at2804. M !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Threejusticescontinuetoinsistthatfacialchallengestoabortionstatutesmustfailunlessthereexistsnosetofcircumstancesinwhichthestatutecanbeconstitutionallyapplied.See_Janklow_Ԁv.PlannedParenthood,517U.S.1174,___,116S.Ct.1582,158485(1996)(Scalia,J.,dissentingfromthedenialofcertiorari);Adav.Guam_Socy_Ԁof_Obstetricians_ԀandGynecologists,506U.S.1011,101112,113S.Ct.633,63334(1992)(Scalia,J.,dissentingfromthedenialofcertiorari).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeDivisionofInformationResources,Tennessee_Dept_ԀofHealth,ReportofInducedAbortionsinTennessee1990(June1992). . !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Chattanooga,Knoxville,Nashville,Memphis,andtheTriCities. ] !#d#FF   $   X FX       _ThePlannedParenthoodclinicsinMemphisandNashvillearelicensedasambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcenters.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeCityofAkronv.AkronCtr.forReproductiveHealth,462U.S.at434439,103S.Ct.at249597;PlannedParenthood_Assn_ԀofKansasCity,Mo.,Inc.v.Ashcroft,462U.S.476,48182,103S.Ct.2517,2520(1983). 1 !#d#FF   $   X FX       _See_ACOG_ԀStandardsat6566.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _See_ACOG_ԀStandardsat68.Themedicalcommunityhasalsoconcludedthatabortionscanbeprovidedevenlaterinambulatorysurgicalfacilitiesattachedtohospitalsbecauseoftheavailabilityofsurgical,recovery,andemergencyresponsefacilities. . !#d#FF   $   X FX       _See_ACOG_ԀStandardsat66. ( !#d#FF   $   X FX       _See_ACOG_ԀStandardsat74.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Asanillustration,onephysicianwhoperformsabortionsatthePlannedParenthoodclinicinNashvillerecountedanoccasionwhenhewasforcedtocompleteaprocedureusingaflashlightwhentheclinicselectricalpowerfailed. J !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeEvansv.Steelman,No.01S019701JV00019,1998WL325224(Tenn.Mar.30,1998). l !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Thiscomparisonisbasedonthecostofabortionsperformedduringthefirstfourteenweeksofpregnancy.Wehavenosimilarcomparisonofcostsforabortionsperformedafterthefirstfourteenweeksbecauseoutpatientclinicsarenotpresentlyperformingtheseprocedures.Forthepurposeofouranalysis,wewillpresumethattherearesimilardifferencesinthecostofpostfourteenweekabortions.Thecostdifferenceismostlikelynotasgreatbecausetheclinicswouldpassontotheirpatientsmost,ifnotall,oftheincreasedoperatingexpensesincurredtocomplywiththe_ACOG_ԀStandards.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _AmericanMedical_Assn_,CouncilonScientificAffairs, InducedTerminationofPregnancyBeforeandAfterRoev.Wade:TrendsinMortalityandMorbidityinWomen,at16(May1992).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _TheStatehasnotappealedfromthetrialcourtsdecisionthattheinformationrequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(4)ismisleading.Accordingly,thevalidityofthisprovisionisnotbeforeus.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _AmericanPub.Health_Assn_,_APHA_ԀRecommendedProgram_Guide_ԀforAbortionServices(Revised1979),70Am.J.Pub.Health652,654(1980). / !#d#FF   $   X FX       _See_ACOG_ԀStandards,at68.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _CouncilonEthical&JudicialAffairs,AmericanMedical_Assn_,CodeofMedicalEthics,CourtOpinionsxi(1992). ( !#d#FF   $   X FX       _The_ACOG_ԀStandardsstate:8  Intheeventofanunwantedpregnancy,thephysicianshouldcounselthepatientaboutheroptions:1)continuingthepregnancytotermandkeepingtheinfant,2)continuingthepregnancytotermandofferingtheinfantforlegaladoption,or3)abortingthepregnancy.Whenfeasible,andwiththepatientsapproval,thephysicianshouldofferthiscounselingtothepatientsrelativesandtoherparents(ifsheisanadolescent)beforethisdifficultdecisionismade.Ifthepatientelectsabortion,informationaboutcontraceptionshouldbeoffered.Whenthephysicianrecommendspregnancyterminationformedicalorpsychologicalindications,consultationmaybeappropriate._ACOG_ԀStandards,at62.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Weneednotdecideinthiscasewhetherprovidingtruthfulyetirrelevantinformationplacesanundueburdenon_procreational_Ԁchoicebecausethepartieshaveneitherraisednorbriefedtheissue. I !#d#FF   $   X FX       _ReportofCommitteetoStudyAidtoFamilieswithDependentChildren,atp.7(Oct.1992).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _SeeTennessee_Commn_ԀonChildren&Youth,KidsCount,TheStateoftheChildinTennessee1996,at10(May1997)( KidsCount).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Over97%oftheabortionsperformedinTennesseeemploythesuctioncurettageprocedure.SeeDivisionofInformationResources,Tennessee_Dept_ԀofHealth,ReportofInducedAbortionsinTennessee1990,at15(Jan.1992).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _ThisemergencymedicalexceptionissimilartothegeneralemergencymedicalexceptionfoundinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h).Weneednotaddressinthiscasewhetherhavingtwopotentiallyoverlappingemergencymedicalexceptionsintroducesunconstitutionalambiguityintothestatute.However,asweconcludedinSectionV(F)ofthisopinion,thescopeofthisexception,likethatofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h),istoonarrow.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _ThefirstofthetwostudiesinvolvedwomenseekingabortionsfromPlannedParenthoodclinicsinKnoxvilleandMemphisbetweenOctober1979andJanuary1980.ThesecondstudyinvolvedwomeninMemphisbutexcludedwomenwhoexpressedanuncertaintyaboutobtaininganabortion.SeeMichael_Lupfer_Ԁ&_Bohne_ԀG._Silber_,HowPatientsViewMandatoryWaitingPeriodsforAbortions,13Fam.PlanningPerspectives75,76(March/April1981)( _Lupfer_Ԁ&_Silber_).TheStatehasnotchallengedthemethodologyofthesestudies,andweexpressnoindependentopinionconcerningthestudiesmethodologyorconclusions. ~ !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Therecordcontainsotherevidencethatwomendecidewhethertheywillobtainanabortionwithinoneweekaftermissingtheirmenstrualperiod.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Atonepointlateintheproceeding,thetrialcourtreferredtobutdidnotappeartorelyondataobtainedbyTheAlan_Guttmacher_ԀInstitutethatwasintroducedthroughitsDeputyDirectorofResearch.Othercourts,citingwhattheybelievedtobeseriousmethodologicalshortcomings,havedeclinedtogivecredencetootherInstitutestudies.See_Karlin_Ԁv._Foust_,975F.Supp.at121518(decliningtoaccreditthedeputydirectorsconclusionthatWisconsins24hourwaitingperiodoperatesasasubstantialobstacleinalargenumberofcases).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Theclinicsrecordsdonotindicatehowmanyofthewomenwhomissedtheirfirstappointmentobtainedanotherappointmentandeventuallyobtainedanabortion.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _ThemedicaldirectorofthePlannedParenthoodclinicinNashvillecouldnotrecallanyincidentsofharassmentorofbreachofconfidentiality.Theclinicsclinicaldirectorrecalledonlyoneincidentwheretheprivacyofawomanchoosingthetwostepprocedurewasbreached.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _WehavefoundnodecisionshandeddownsincePlannedParenthoodv.Caseyconstruingtheconstitutionalityofawaitingperiodlongerthantwentyfourhours.Priorto1992,atleastfourcourtsstruckdown48hourwaitingperiods.See_Womens_Ԁ_Servs_.,P.C._v.Thone_,636F.2d206,210(8thCir.1980);Wynnv.Carey,599F.2d193,196(7thCir.1979);PlannedParenthood_Assn_ԀofKansasCity,Mo.,Inc.v.Ashcroft,483F.Supp.679,696(W.D.Mo.1980);WomensCommunityHealthCtr.,Inc.v.Cohen,477F.Supp.542,551(D.Me.1979).  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _TherecordcontainsevidencethatthePlannedParenthoodclinicinNashvilleemploysseveralphysicianswhoprovideabortionservicesatthecliniconlyonedayeveryotherweek.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       __Unemancipated_Ԁwomenlivingathomefaceadditionalproblemswithregardto(a)obtainingthefundsnecessarytopayfortheprocedure,(b)discussingtheirpregnancywiththeirparentsorseekingajudicialbypassofthisrequirement,(c)discussingtheirpregnancywiththeirsexualpartner,and(d)findingtheopportunitytobeabsentfromschooltoobtainthecounselingandtheabortion. J !#d#FF   $   X FX       _Whileevenhanded,thetrialcourtsdecisionseemstobesomewhatinconsistentwiththepurposeofcourtappointedexpertswhichistoprovidethetrialcourtwithneutral,unbiasedexpertswhowillprovidemorereliableexpertopinions.See29CharlesA.Wright&VictorJ.Gold,FederalPracticeandProcedure6302(1997). ' !#d#FF   $   X FX       _TheStatehasnottakenissuewiththesefeesonappeal. Z !#d#FF   $   X FX       _TheStatehasnotappealedfromthetrialcourtsdeterminationthatthisprovisionisunconstitutional.  !#d#FF   $   X FX       _ThePlannedParenthoodplaintiffshavenotappealedfromthetrialcourtsdeterminationthatTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(1),(2)are_constitutional._ z !#d#FF   $   X FX       _TheStatehasnotappealedfromthetrialcourtsdeterminationthatthisprovisionis_unconstitutional._PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . FF     X  X \RA'\ћ_7dd7    F  @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE FFPLANNEDPARENTHOODOF  )MIDDLETENNESSEE,etal.  )      ) Plaintiffs/Appellants,  )      ) DavidsonCircuitVS.      ) No.92C1672      )DON_SUNDQUIST_,GOVERNOR )OFTHESTATEOFTENNESSEE, ) AppealNo.etal.,      ) 01A019601CV00052      ) Defendants/Appellees.  )@ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTFORDAVIDSONCOUNTY@ ATNASHVILLE,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEHAMILTON_GAYDEN_,JUDGEForPlaintiffs/Appellants:     ForDefendants/Appellees:BarryFriedman      JohnKnox_Walkup_VanderbiltUniversity     AttorneyGeneralandReporterNashville,Tennessee        AndyD.BennettIrwin_Venick_       AssociateChiefDeputyDobbins&_Venick_Nashville,Tennessee     MichaelW._Catalano_        AssociateSolicitorGeneralElizabethB.Thompson_Howrey_Ԁ&SimonWashington,DC      ForDr.AnthonyTrabueand̜        Dr.BettyNeff:BarbaraE._Otten__Dara_Ԁ_Klassel       J.RussellHeldman_ԛRogerK.Evans      Franklin,TennesseePlannedParenthoodFederationofAmerica,Inc.NewYork,NYLouise_Melling_CatherineWeissAmericanCivilLibertiesFoundationNewYork,NYForAmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologists:AnnE.AllenAmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologistsWashington,DCAbbyR._Rubenfeld__Rubenfeld_Ԁ&AssociatesNashville,TennesseeFF @ AFFIRMEDINPART;REVERSEDINPART;@ ANDREMANDED F       WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE  F @ OPINION F ThisappealpresentsamultifacetedchallengetotheconstitutionalityofTennesseesabortionstatutes.AfteraphysicianandaclinicinKnoxvillewerechargedwithviolatingthesestatutes,twootherclinicsinMemphisandNashville,joinedbythreephysicians,filedsuitintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountyseekingdeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefundertheConstitutionofTennessee.Thetrialcourtstruckdowntheresidencyrequirement,thewaitingperiod,andtherequirementthatphysiciansinformtheirpatientsthatanabortionisamajorsurgicalprocedure.Aftermakingitsownsubstantiverevisionsinthestatutorytext,thetrialcourtupheldthemandatoryhospitalizationrequirement,theremaininginformedconsentrequirements,andthenewlyenactedparentalconsentrequirement.Wehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourterredbyrevisingthetextofseveralprovisions.WehavealsodeterminedthattheemergencymedicalexceptionenactedbytheGeneralAssemblyisunconstitutionallynarrow,thatthecombinedeffectofthewaitingperiodandthephysicianonlycounselingrequirementplacesanundueburdenonwomens_procreational_Ԁchoice,andthattheremainingchallengedprovisionsasconstruedhereinpassconstitutionalmuster.@ I.  Tennesseesstatutesregulatingabortionshavenotdevelopedinavacuumduringthepasttwentyfiveyears.Theyhavebeeninextricablycaughtupinthecontinuingnationaldebateoverthescopeofawomansfreedomtomakeprofoundlypersonaldecisionsconcerningwhetherornottoterminateherpregnancyfreefromunwarrantedgovernmentalintrusion.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsabortionjurisprudencehasinfluencedthedirectionofthisdebate,andthus,TennesseesabortionstatutesmustbeconsideredagainstanationalbackdropthattakesintoaccountthefederalconstitutionalprinciplesformulatedandappliedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt. In1973,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatwomenpossessafundamentalrighttodecidewhethertoterminateapregnancy.Thisrightspringsfromtheirconstitutionallyprotectedrightofprivacyandtheirlibertyinterestsarisingunder_the_ԀDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.SeeRoev.Wade,410U.S.113,15255,93S.Ct.705,726728(1973).Butasfundamentalastheserightsare,theCourtalsoheldthattheyarenotabsoluteorunqualifiedandthattheymustbemeasuredagainsttheStatesimportantinterestsinsafeguardinghealth,inmaintainingmedicalstandards,andinprotectingpotentiallife.SeeRoev.Wade,410U.S.at154,93S.Ct.at727. TheCourtreconciledwomens_procreational_ԀrightswiththeStatesinterestsintwoways.First,theCourtannouncedthatstatutesaffectingawomansrighttodecidewhethertoterminateapregnancymustbesubjectedtoheightenedscrutinyandshouldbeupheldonlywhentheyarenarrowlydrawntofurtheracompellingstateinterest.SeeRoev.Wade,410U.S.at155156,93S.Ct.at728.Second,theCourtestablishedthetrimesterframeworktogovernabortionregulations.Duringthefirsttrimester,almostnointerferencewithawomansrighttodecidewhethertoterminateapregnancywaspermitted.Duringthesecondtrimester,theframeworkallowedregulationstoprotectthewomanshealthbutnottofurthertheStatesinterestinprotectingpotentiallife.Duringthethirdtrimester,whenthefetuswasviable,theframeworkpermittedthestatestoprohibitabortionsunlessthelifeorhealthofthemotherwasatstake.SeeRoev.Wade,410U.S.at16366,93S.Ct.at73133. Ratherthanendingtheabortioncontroversy,theRoev.Wadedecisioncausedabortiontobecomeoneofthemostdivisivedomesticlegalissuesofourtime.SeePlannedParenthoodv.Casey,505U.S.833,995,112S.Ct.2791,2882(1992)(Scalia,J.,concurringinthejudgmentinpartanddissentinginpart);Websterv.ReproductiveHealth_Servs_.,492U.S.490,559,109S.Ct.3040,3079(1989)(Blackmun,J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart);EarlM._Maltz_,Abortion,Precedent,andtheConstitution:ACommentonPlannedParenthoodofSoutheastPennsylvaniav.Casey,68NotreDameL.Rev.11,27(1992).StatelegislaturesbegantotestthelimitsoftheRoev.Wadedecisionbyenactingvariousrestrictionsonawomansrighttodecidewhethertoterminateherpregnancy.Foritspart,theCourtusedRoev.Wadesstrictscrutinytesttostrikedownanumberoftheserestrictions._ G   _ԀButevenwhileitwasinvalidatingstatestatutesrestrictingawomansrighttoterminateherpregnancy,theCourtalsoheldrepeatedlythatthestatescouldfavorchildbirthoverabortionbydecliningtousepublicfundsorfacilitiestoperformabortions._ H   _ TennesseewasnotunaffectedbytheRoev.Wadedecision.Ittoohadastatuteonthebooks,liketheTexasstatutestruckdowninRoev.Wade,thatcriminalizedabortionsexcepttopreservethelifeofthemother. J   ׀Realizingthatthestatutecouldnotpassconstitutionalmuster,theGeneralAssemblyenactedanewstatuteintendedtocomplywithRoev.Wadestrimesterframework. M   ׀However,theGeneralAssemblylimitedtherighttoobtainanabortionunderthenewstatutetowomenwhocoulddemonstratethattheywerebonafideresidentsofTennessee. N   ׀ Duringthenextfiveyears,theGeneralAssemblyincreasedthepunishmentforperformingcriminalabortions e   ׀andprovidedforthemedicalcareandcustodyofinfants_born_Ԁliveduringanabortionprocedure. h   ׀Italsoestablishedaninformedconsentprocedureandimposedawaitingperiodbeforeabortionscouldbeperformed. i    ThefirstjudicialchallengetoTennesseesabortionstatuteswasfiledintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheWesternDistrictofTennesseewhenPlannedParenthoodofMemphisattackedtheresidencyrequirementenactedin1973andtheinformedconsentandwaitingperiodrequirementsenactedin1978.TheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtpermanentlyenjoinedtheenforcementoftheresidencyrequirementandcontinuedthetemporaryinjunctionagainstenforcingthewaitingperiod.SeePlannedParenthoodofMemphisv._Blanton_,No.782310(W.D.Tenn.July14,1978).In1979,theGeneralAssemblyenactednewinformedconsentandwaitingperiodrequirementsdesignedtorespondtotheconstitutionalchallengesinvolvedinthependingfederallitigation. j   ׀Italsoestablishedaparentalnotificationprocedureforminorsseekinganabortion m   andplacedrestrictionsonresearchandexperimentationonabortedfetuses. n    Withinmonthsaftertheenactmentofthe1979amendmentstotheabortionstatutes,theChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountytemporarilyenjoinedtheenforcementoftheinformedconsentandwaitingperiodrequirements.AftertheAttorneyGeneraldeclinedtodefendtheparentalnotificationprocedure,thechancerycourtalsofoundthatitwasunconstitutional.SeePlannedParenthoodofNashville,Inc.v.Alexander,No.79843II(DavidsonChan.Oct.19&24,1979)(noappealfiled).Approximatelyoneandonehalfyearslater,thefederaldistrictcourtinMemphispermanentlyenjoinedtheenforcementofthe1978waitingperiodstatute.SeePlannedParenthoodofMemphisv.Alexander,No.782310(W.D.Tenn.Mar.23,1981). In1982theGeneralAssembly_recodified_Ԁtheabortionstatuteswithoutsubstantivechange.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.394201,208(1982).Sixyearslater,itestablishedanewparentalconsentprocedure._ s   _ԀIn1989,theGeneralAssemblyprovidedforexpeditedappellatereviewofjudicialdecisionstoforegoparentalconsent. t   ׀Duringthesamesession,theGeneralAssemblyagain_recodified_Ԁtheabortionstatutesbutthistimemadesubstantivechangesinthelaw.Itreplacedthe1988parentalconsentprocedureswiththeparentalnotificationproceduresoriginallyenactedin1979thathadbeeninvalidatedbytheDavidsonCountyChanceryCourttenyearsearlier. w   ׀TheTennesseeSupremeCourtlaterdeterminedthattheGeneralAssemblys_recodification_Ԁofthe1979parentalnotificationproceduresrepealedthe1988parentalconsentproceduresbyimplication.SeePlannedParenthood_Assn_ԀofNashville,Inc.v._McWherter_,817S.W.2d13,16(Tenn.1991). TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsadherencetothetrimesterframeworkinRoev.Wadebegantowaverastheyearspassed.In1989,threejusticesconcludedthatitwasunsoundinprincipleandunworkableinpractice,seeWebsterv.ReproductiveHealth_Servs_.,492U.S.490,518,109S.Ct.3040,3056(1989);onejusticeadvocatedoverrulingRoev.Wadeoutright,seeWebsterv.ReproductiveHealth_Servs_.,492U.S.at532,109S.Ct.at3064(Scalia,J.,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment);whileanotherjusticeimpliedthatRoev.Wadeshouldbereexaminedatapropertime.SeeWebsterv.ReproductiveHealth_Servs_.,492U.S.at52526,109S.Ct.at306061(OConnor,J.,concurringinpartandconcurringinthejudgment).ThismovementawayfromthetrimesterframeworkpromptedtheauthorofthemajorityopinioninRoev.Wadetodeclarethatawomansrighttoterminateapregnancywasnot secure.SeeWebsterv.ReproductiveHealth_Servs_.,492U.S.at537,109S.Ct.at3067(Blackmun,J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart). TheoccasionforreexaminingRoev.Wadearrivedin1992inacasechallengingthePennsylvaniaAbortionControlAct.Inasplintereddecisioninwhichthejusticesissuedfiveseparateopinions,sevenmembersofthecourtchosetoabandonRoev.Wadestrimesterframeworkandstrictscrutinystandard.ThesamefourjusticeswhohadearliersignaledtheirdissatisfactionwiththeRoev.Wadedecisionconcludedthatawomansdecisiontoterminateherpregnancywasnot afundamentalrightthatcouldbeabridgedonlyinamannerwhichwithstoodstrictscrutiny.PlannedParenthoodv.Casey,505U.S.833,953,112S.Ct.2791,2860(1992)(Rehnquist,C.J.,concurringinthejudgmentanddissentinginpart).Threeotherjusticesrenderedararejointopinioninwhichtheyreaffirmedthe essentialholdingofRoev.Wade,seePlannedParenthoodv.Casey,505U.S.at846,112S.Ct.at2804(OConnor,Kennedy,&_Souter_,JJ.),butalsoreplacedthetrimesterframeworkwithanundueburdenstandardinwhichtheviabilityoftheunbornchildplaysaprominentrole.SeePlannedParenthoodv.Casey,505U.S.at87677,112S.Ct.at282021(OConnor,Kennedy,&_Souter_,JJ.). Basedonthefactsbeforeit,theCourtunanimouslyupheldthePennsylvaniastatutesdefinitionof medicalemergency.However,retreatingfromitsearlierdecisionsinThornburghv.AmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologists,476U.S.747,106S.Ct.2169(1986)andCityofAkronv.AkronCtr.forReproductiveHealth,462U.S.416,103S.Ct.2481(1983),theCourtupheld(1)aninformedconsentprocedurethatrequiredgivingwomentruthful,_nonmisleading_Ԁinformationaboutthenatureoftheprocedure,theattendanthealthrisksaswellasthoseofchildbirth,andthegestationalageofthefetus,(2)arequirementthatphysiciansprovidepreabortioncounseling,and(3)arequirementofa24hourwaitingperiodbeforeanabortioncouldbeperformed.TheCourtalsoupheldaoneparentconsentrequirement_for_Ԁminorsthatincludedanadequatejudicialbypassprocedure.TheonlyprovisionthattheCourtstruckdown,byanarrowmajorityofasinglevote,wasPennsylvanias_spousal_Ԁnotificationrequirement. Inthemeantime,thecontroversyoverTennesseesabortionstatutesbegantotakeconcreteformin1992.AfteragrandjuryinKnoxvilleindictedaclinicandaphysicianforperforminganabortiononaminorwhowasmorethanthreemonthspregnant,thestatutesopponentsfiledsuitintheChanceryCourtforKnoxCountychallengingthestatutesconstitutionality._ x   _ԀLessthanthreeweeksafterthePlannedParenthoodv.Caseydecision,PlannedParenthoodAssociationofNashville,Inc.andMemphisPlannedParenthood,Inc.filedsuitintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCountyseekingadeclarationthatsixprovisionsoftheabortionlawswereunconstitutionalandrequestinganinjunctionagainsttheirenforcement. {   ׀Later,theyfiledanamendedcomplaintaddingthreephysiciansasplaintiffswhowereseekingtorepresentthemselvesandtheirpatients. ThetrialcourtconductedafivedaybenchtrialinOctoberandNovember1992.Duringthecourseofthenextsixteenmonths,thetrialcourtissuedthreeopinionscontainingitsfindingswithregardtotheconstitutionalityofthechallengedstatutes.Specifically,thetrialcourtfoundthatthefollowingfourprovisionswereunconstitutional:theresidencyrequirementinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(d),thewaitingperiodinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(d),thewaitingperiodforminorsinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(f),andtherequirementinTenn.CodeAnn.3615202(b)(4)thatwomenbeinformedthatanabortionisa majorsurgicalprocedure.ThetrialcourtalsodeterminedthatTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(a)andTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(b)(2)werenotunconstitutionallyvague.Finallythetrialcourt_upheld_Ԁtheremainingchallengedprovisionsafter broadlyconstruingor salvagingthembyimportingtermsintothestatutorytextthathadnotbeenincludedbytheGeneralAssembly. InNovember1994,thiscourtdismissedthefirstappealinthiscaseforlackofafinalorderandremandedthecaseforfurtherproceedings.Whilethecasewaspendinginthetrialcourt,theGeneralAssemblyrevivedtheparentalconsentrequirementoriginallyenactedin1988andcodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3710301,307andrepealedtheparentalnotificationrequirementinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(f). |   ׀Uponbeingnotifiedofthislegislativedevelopment,thetrialcourtinitiallyobservedthattherevivaloftheparentalconsentstatutesmightrendermootitsdecisionconcerningtheconstitutionalityoftheparentalnotificationprocedureinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(f).EventhoughtheplaintiffsspecificallydeclinedtoamendtheircomplainttochallengetheparentalconsentstatutesandrequestedarulingontheconstitutionalityofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(f),thetrialcourtenteredanotherorderinJuly1995upholdingtheconstitutionalityofthenewparentalconsentprocedureinTenn.CodeAnn.3710301,307.ThetrialcourtenteredanamendedfinalorderandjudgmentinAugust1995.@ II.  WewillfirstaddressathresholdmatterconcerningtheplaintiffsstandingtochallengetherequirementinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(2)thatabortionsperformedafterthefirstthreemonthsofpregnancymustbeperformedinahospital.TheStateassertsthattheplaintiffsdonothavestandingbecauseneitherPlannedParenthoodcliniccurrentlyofferssecondtrimesterabortions.Theplaintiffsrespondintwoways.First,theyassertthattheplaintiffphysicianshavestandingtochallengethehospitalizationrequirementonbehalfofthemselvesandtheirpatients.Second,theypointoutthattheNashvillePlannedParenthoodclinichasbeenconsideringofferingsecondtrimesterabortionsbecauseof thepaucityofthoseservicesavailableinMiddleTennessee. Standingisajudgemadedoctrineusedtodeterminewhetherapartyisentitledtojudicialrelief.See_Knierim_Ԁv.Leatherwood,542S.W.2d806,808(Tenn.1976);MetropolitanAirResearchTestingAuth.,Inc.v.Metropolitan_Govt_,842S.W.2d611,615(Tenn.Ct.App.1992).Itrequiresthecourttodeterminewhetherthepartyseekingreliefhasasufficientlypersonalstakeintheoutcometowarranttheexerciseofthecourtspower.SeeBrowningFerrisIndus.,Inc.v.CityofOakRidge,644S.W.2d400,402(Tenn.Ct.App.1982).Theprimaryfocusofastandinginquiryisontheparty,seeValleyForgeChristianCollegev.AmericansUnitedforSeparationofChurchandState,454U.S.464,484,102S.Ct.752,765(1982),notthelikelihoodofsuccessofthepartysclaim.See_Warth_Ԁv._Seldin_,422U.S.490,500,95S.Ct.2197,2206(1975);_Flast_Ԁv.Cohen,392U.S.83,99,88S.Ct.1942,1952(1968). Asageneralrule,partiesmustasserttheirownrightsandinterestsandnottherightsandinterestsofthirdpartiesinordertohavestanding.See_Warth_Ԁv._Seldin_,422U.S.at499,95S.Ct.at2205.Thus,litigantsordinarilyestablishtheirstandingbydemonstratingthattheyhavesustainedsomeactualorthreatenedinjury,thattheinjurywascausedbythechallengedconduct,andthattheinjuryisoneforwhichajudicialremedyisavailable.SeeInrePetitionof_Youngblood_,895S.W.2d322,326(Tenn.1995);Tennessee_Envtl_.Councilv.SolidWasteDisposalControlBd.,852S.W.2d893,896(Tenn.Ct.App.1992);MetropolitanAirResearchTestingAuth.,Inc.v.Metropolitan_Govt_,842S.W.2dat615.However,thecourtsmayalsograntalitigantstandingtoasserttherightsofthirdparties(_jus_Ԁ_tertii_)whenthelitiganthassuffereditsowndirectinjuryinfactandwhentheconcomitantrightsofthirdpartieswouldbedilutedoradverselyaffectedbytheproceeding.SeeCraigv.Boren,429U.S.190,195,97S.Ct.451,45556(1976). TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasspecificallyaccordedphysiciansstandingtochallengetheconstitutionalityofabortionstatutesonbehalfoftheirpatients.Recognizingtheclosenessofthephysicianpatientrelationship,thefactthatawomancannotsafelyprocureanabortionexceptfromaphysician,andthedifficultiesfacingwomenwhowishtoasserttheirownclaims,theCourtconcludedthata physicianisuniquelyqualifiedtolitigatetheconstitutionalityoftheStatesinterferencewith,or_discrimination_Ԁagainst,[awomansdecisiontoterminateherpregnancy].Singletonv._Wulff_,428U.S.106,117,96S.Ct.2868,2875(1976). Theabilityofaphysiciantoperformanabortioninaclinicratherthanahospitalaffectsawomansexerciseofherrighttodecidewhethertoterminateherpregnancy.Inthiscase,boththephysiciansandtheclinicshavedemonstratedaconcretelegalinterestintheenforcementoftherestrictionbecause(1)theyriskcriminalprosecutioniftheyignoreitand(2)themedicaldirectorofthePlannedParenthoodclinicinNashvilleintendstobeginprovidingabortionsattheclinicafterthefirstthreemonthsofpregnancyifthecurrentrestrictionisinvalidated.SeeAkronCtr.forReproductiveHealthv.CityofAkron,479F.Supp.1172,121415(N.D.Ohio1979),_affd_Ԁinpartand_revd_Ԁinpartonothergrounds,462U.S.416,103S.Ct.2481(1983)(findingstandingwhenaclinicdirectorexpressedadesiretoperformabortionsafterthefirsttrimester).Basedonthisrecord,wefindthatboththePlannedParenthoodplaintiffsandthephysicianplaintiffshavestandingtochallengethehospitalizationrequirementinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(2).@ III.  Weturnnexttotherolethatcourtsshouldplayinlitigationchallengingtheconstitutionalityofastatestatute.Inthiscase,thetrialcourtundertookto salvage }   ׀thestatutebybroadlyinterpretingseveralofitschallengedprovisions.Bydoingso,thetrialcourtexceededitsproperroleinatleastthreeinstancesandtherebyusurpedprerogativesexclusivelywithintheprovinceoftheGeneralAssembly.@ A.  ThetrialcourtmanifestedakeeninterestthroughouttheproceedingsinreconcilingTenn.CodeAnn.3915201,202withcurrentmedicalpractice.ItappointedexpertsinaccordancewithTenn.R._Evid_.706_ ~   _Ԁandaggressivelyquestionedthewitnessesconcerningtheirunderstandingofpropermedicalpractice.ThetrialcourtfrequentlysignaleditsintentiontoproposerevisionstotheabortionstatutestoconformthemtothestandardsoftheAmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologists_    _Ԁandtoreconcilethemwiththeadvancesinmedicalscienceoccurringsincethestatuteswerefirstenacted.     Initsopinions,memoranda,andorders,thetrialcourteventuallyalteredthewordingandmeaningoftwoportionsofTenn.CodeAnn.3915201andsixportionsofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202.Itconstruedthephrase firstthree(3)monthsofpregnancyinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(1)tomean firsttrimesteror fourteen(14)weeksfromthefirstdayofawomanslastmenstrualperiodortwelve(12)weeksfromconception.Thetrialcourtalsoconstruedtheword hospitalinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(2)toinclude ambulatorysurgicalcenterforabortionsperformeduptoeighteenweeksfromawomanslastmenstrualperiod. ThetrialcourtconstruedtherequirementinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)thatthewomanbe orallyinformedbyherattendingphysicianofcertainstatutorilyrequiredinformationtopermitphysiciansto personallyprovidethemandatedinformationorpersonallyconfirmwiththepatientthatshehasbeengiventheinformation.ThetrialcourtalsointerpretedTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(5)torequirephysicianstorespondtoapatientsrequestforinformationbyprovidingalistofservicesandagencies reasonablyknowntothem.Inaddition,thetrialcourtremovedtheword orbetweenTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(5)and202(b)(6),construedthephrase parentsorlegalguardiansinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(f)(1)tomean parentorlegalguardian,andconstruedtheword healthinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(f)(2)(B)toinclude psychologicalhealth.Finally,thetrialcourtinterpretedtheword lifeinthemedicalemergencyexceptioninTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)(Supp.1989)    ׀tomean lifeandhealth.@ B.  Theconstitutionaldoctrineofseparationofpowersshapesthecourtspowertoconstruestatutesthathavecomeunderconstitutionalattack.See_Ashe_v.Leech,653S.W.2d398,401(Tenn.1983);_Peay_Ԁv.Nolan,157Tenn.222,234,7S.W.2d815,818(1928).Tenn.Const.art.II,3vestsalllegislativeauthorityintheGeneralAssembly,andTenn.Const.art.II,2prohibitstheothertwodepartmentsofgovernmentfromexercisinglegislativepower.TheGeneralAssemblyslegislativepowerislimitedonlybythefederalandstateconstitutions.SeeWilliamsv.Carr,218Tenn.564,578,404S.W.2d522,529(1966);_Smiddy_Ԁv.CityofMemphis,140Tenn.97,10405,203_S.W._Ԁ512,514(1918). TheGeneralAssembly,notthecourts,isresponsiblefortheformulationofthestatespublicpolicythatisnotalreadyembodiedinthestateandfederalconstitutions.SeeSteinv.DavidsonHotelCo.,945S.W.2d714,717(Tenn.1997);Caryv.Cary,937S.W.2d777,781(Tenn.1996);Cooperv.Nolan,159Tenn.379,386,19S.W.2d274,276(1929);_Cavender_Ԁv._Hewitt_,145Tenn.471,475,239_S.W._Ԁ767,768(1922).Thus,whentheconstitutionalityofastatutehasbeencalledintoquestion,thecourtsmustfirstascertainthepurposeandeffectofthestatuteandthenmustdeterminewhetherthestatuteconformstotheapplicableconstitutionalrequirements.See_Peay_Ԁv.Nolan,157Tenn.at235,7S.W.2dat818.Thecourtswillinvalidateastatuteonlywhenitclearlycontraveneseitherthestateorthefederalconstitution.SeeHollyv.Cityof_Elizabethton_,193Tenn.46,53,241S.W.2d1001,100405(1951);_Soukup_Ԁv.Sell,171Tenn.437,441,104S.W.2d830,831(1937).__ AconstitutionalchallengedoesnotgivethecourtslicensetosecondguesstheGeneralAssemblyspolicyjudgmentsortoimporttheirownviewsintothestatutorytext.SeeNationalBroilerMarketing_Assn_Ԁv.UnitedStates,436U.S.816,827,98S.Ct.2122,2130(1978).Normaythecourtsreviewthestatuteswisdom,necessity,expediency,ordesirability.SeeNashville_Mobilephone_ԀCo.v.Atkins,536S.W.2d335,340(Tenn.1976);Dennisv.Sears,Roebuck&Co.,223Tenn.415,426,446S.W.2d260,266(1969);_Estep_Ԁv.State,183Tenn.325,335,192S.W.2d706,710(1946).Theremediesfortheseillsareentrustedtothepublic,notthecourts.SeeStatev.Lindsay,103Tenn.625,640,53_S.W._Ԁ950,954(1899);Henleyv.State,98Tenn.665,679,41_S.W._Ԁ352,354(1897);Stateexrel.Colemanv.Campbell,3Tenn._Cas_.(Shannon)355,366(1875). Thetraditionalcanonsofstatutoryconstructionguidetheinquiryintoastatutespurposeandeffect.Thecourtsascertainastatutespurposefromtheplainandordinarymeaningofitslanguage.SeeWestlandWestCommunity_Assn_Ԁv.KnoxCounty,948S.W.2d281,283(Tenn.1997);Riggsv._Burson_,941S.W.2d44,54(Tenn.1997).Becausethecourtsmustgiveeffecttounambiguousstatutes,seeSpencerv.TowsonMoving&Storage,Inc.,922S.W.2d508,510(Tenn.1996),thereisnoroomforapplyingtherulesofconstructionwhenthelanguageisplainandclear.See_Pursell_Ԁv.FirstAm._Natl_ԀBank,937S.W.2d838,842(Tenn.1996);Andersonv.Outland,210Tenn.526,532,360S.W.2d44,47(1962).Thus,whenthewordsofastatuteclearlymeanonething,thecourtscannotgivethemanothermeaningundertheguiseofconstruingthem.SeeHenryv.White,194Tenn.192,198,250S.W.2d70,72(1952);Stateexrel._Barksdale_Ԁv.Wilson,194Tenn.140,14445,250S.W.2d49,51(1952);_Mathes_v.State,173Tenn.511,516,121S.W.2d548,550(1938). Thecourtsalsohaveadutytousethecanonsofconstructiontomakesenseratherthannonsenseoutofstatutes.SeeWestVirginiaUniv.Hospitals,Inc.v.Casey,499U.S.83,101,111S.Ct.1138,1148(1991);McClellanv.BoardofRegents,921S.W.2d684,689(Tenn.1996);Mercyv.Olsen,672S.W.2d196,200(Tenn.1984).Wheneverpossible,wemustemploythecanonstosavestatutes,nottodestroythem.SeeScalesv.State,181Tenn.440,443,181S.W.2d621,622(1944).Accordingly,webeginbypresumingthatthechallengedstatuteisconstitutional.SeeVogelv.WellsFargoGuard_Servs_.,937S.W.2d856,858(Tenn.1996);Inre_Burson_,909S.W.2d768,775(Tenn.1995).Whenfacedwithachoicebetweentwoplausibleconstructionsofastatute,thecourtsshouldadopttheconstructionthatavoidsunderminingthestatutesconstitutionality.SeeDavis_Kidd_ԀBooksellers,Inc.v._McWherter_,866S.W.2d520,52930(Tenn.1993);Statev.Lyons,802S.W.2d590,592(Tenn.1990);Railroadv._Crider_,91Tenn.489,506,19_S.W._Ԁ618,622(1892).But,ashelpfulasthiscanonmaybeinclosecases,itdoesnotauthorizethecourtstorewritestatutesenactedbytheGeneralAssembly.SeeChapmanv.UnitedStates,500U.S.453,464,111S.Ct.1919,1927(1991);Hecklerv.Mathews,465U.S.728,74142,104S.Ct.1387,1396(1984). Inthefinalanalysis,alteringoramendingstatutesisauniquelylegislativeprerogative.SeeUnitedStatesv.NationalTreasuryEmployeesUnion,513U.S.454,479n.26,115S.Ct.1003,1019n.26(1995);Richardsonv.TennesseeBd.ofDentistry,913S.W.2d446,453(Tenn.1995);_Manahan_Ԁv.State,188Tenn.394,397,219S.W.2d900,901(1949).Thecourtscannotusethecanonsofconstructiontoamendstatutorylanguage.SeeShelbyCountyElection_Commn_v.Turner,755S.W.2d774,77778(Tenn.1988);TownofMountCarmelv.CityofKingsport,217Tenn.298,306,397S.W.2d379,382(1965);_McBrayer_v.DixieMercerizingCo.,176Tenn.560,569,144S.W.2d764,768(1940).ThefarbetterpracticeistoleavenecessaryamendmentstotheGeneralAssemblyτthegovernmentalbodyconstitutionallyempoweredtomakethem.See2ANormanJ.Singer,StatutesandStatutoryConstruction47.38(5thed.1992). Eventhoughthecourtsshouldstrivetoavoidtamperingwiththetextofastatute,seeUnitedStatesv.NationalTreasuryEmployeesUnion,513U.S.at478,115S.Ct.at1019,theyarenotentirelywithoutauthoritytomodifystatutorytext.Thecourtsshouldexercisetheirauthoritywithunusualcautionandonlyinnarrowlydefinedcircumstancesbecausejudicialrewritingofstatutesprovidesadisincentiveforcarefullegislativedraftinginthefirstinstance,seeRenov.ACLU,___U.S.___,___n.50,117S.Ct.2329,2351n.50(1997);Osbornev.Ohio,495U.S.103,121,110S.Ct.1691,1702(1990),andalsocreatestheriskofinadvertentjudicialinfringementonalegislativeprerogative. Courtsmaysupplymissingwordstorenderastatuteintelligiblewhenthecontextclearlydemonstratesthatthewordswereomittedinadvertentlyormistakenly.SeeMetropolitan_Govt_Ԁv.Poe,215Tenn.53,74,383S.W.2d265,274(1964);Scalesv.State,181Tenn.at443,181S.W.2dat622;_Riggins_Ԁv.Tyler,134Tenn.577,58182,184_S.W._Ԁ860,861(1916).Thecourtmaylikewiseremovewordsfromastatuteinordertoavoidabsurdityaslongastherealpurposeofthestatuteisclear.SeeCityofBristolv.BankofBristol,159Tenn.647,649,21S.W.2d620,621(1929).Thecourtscannot,however,rewritestatutesinordertoconformthemtoconstitutionalrequirements,seeRenov.ACLU,___U.S.at___,117S.Ct.at2351;Virginiav.AmericanBooksellers_Assn_,484U.S.383,397,108S.Ct.636,645(1988),ortomoldthemtoconformthemtotheirownviewsofprudentpublicpolicy.SeeUnitedStatesv.Rutherford,442U.S.544,555,99S.Ct.2470,2477(1979);Nashville_Mobilephone_ԀCo.v.Atkins,536S.W.2dat340.@ C.  Wenowapplytheseprinciplestosixoftheeightprovisions salvagedbythetrialcourt._    _ԀWefindthatthetrialcourtconstruedthreeprovisionscorrectlybutexceededitsauthoritybyessentiallyrewritingtheremainingthreeprovisions.@ 1. @ Tenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(1)  Tenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(1)statesthatabortionproceduresmaybelegallyperformed [_d]uring_Ԁthefirstthree(3)monthsofpregnancyaslongasthewomanhasconsentedandtheprocedureisperformedbyanattendingphysician.    ׀Thephrase firstthree(3)monthsofpregnancymayreasonablybeinterpretedinmorethanonewaybecauseofambiguitiesconcerningwhentheperiodbeginsandthedurationoftheword month.Thus,thetrialcourtproperlyundertooktoconstruethisphraseinawaythatgivesthefullestpossibleeffecttotheGeneralAssemblyspurposeandatthesametimeavoidsunderminingthestatutesconstitutionality. Themedicaltestimonyconcerningthephysiologyofhumanreproductionwasremarkablyconsistent.Boththephysicianswhoopposedthestatutesandthosewhofavoredthemagreedthatthedurationofatypicalhumanpregnancyis265daysand,therefore,thatpregnancycannotbeneatlysubdividedintothreeninetydayperiods.Theyalsoagreedthatthelengthofapregnancycouldbemeasuredeitherfromthedateofconceptionorfromthefirstdayofawomanslastmenstrualperiod    ׀andthatobstetriciansandgynecologistscustomarilycalculatedafetussgestationalagebeginningwiththefirstdayofawomanslastmenstrualperiod. Thephysiciansalsoagreedthattheterm monthwasnotmedicallyhelpfulbecausethepaceoffetaldevelopmentrequiredshortermeasurementintervalsandbecauseitcouldrefertocalendarmonths,thirtydaymonths,orevenfourweekmonths.Accordingly,thephysicianstestifiedthatobstetriciansandgynecologistsmeasuredpregnanciesintermsofweeksratherthanmonthsortrimesters.Theyalsoagreedthattheterm firsttrimesterreferstothefirstfourteenweeksofpregnancymeasuredfromthefirstdayofawomanslastmenstrualperiod,thattheterm secondtrimesterreferstothefifteenththroughthetwentyseventhweekofpregnancy,andthattheterm thirdtrimesteriscommonlyunderstoodbyphysicianstoincludethetimeofpregnancyremainingafterthetwentyseventhweekofpregnancy. Thephrase firstthree(3)monthsofpregnancyinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(1)requiresjudicialconstructionbecauseitcanreasonablybeinterpretedmorethanoneway.Ourexaminationofthecontextinwhichthephraseappears,aswellasitslegislativehistory,leadsustoconcludethattheGeneralAssemblyemployedthephraseinordertosquareTennesseesabortionstatuteswiththetrimesterframeworkfirstestablishedintheRoev.Wadedecision.Wefindnodefinitiveindicationinthestatuteslegislativehistoryofaclearlegislativepurposeconcerningwhenthisperiodshouldbeginorpreciselywhetheritshouldconsistofeightyfourdays(threefourweekmonths),ninetydays(threethirtydaymonths),orninetytwodays(threecalendarmonths,includingtwothirtyonedaymonths). Definingthisphraseinawaythatwillbeunderstoodbothbylaypersonsandthemedicalprofessionisnecessaryfortworeasons.First,thephraseisanintegralpartofastatutoryschemethatimposescriminalliabilityonpersonswhoperformabortionsinconsistentwithitsrequirements.Second,thedifferencebetweeneightyfourandninetytwodayscanhaveaprofoundeffectonawomansdecisionwhetherornottoterminateherpregnancy.Accordingly,wefindthatthetrialcourt,followingtheweightofthemedicalevidencepresented,couldproperlydefinetheterm firstthree(3)monthsofpregnancytomean thefirstfourteenweeksofpregnancymeasuredfromthefirstdayofawomanslastmenstrualperiod.@ 2. @ Tenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(5)  Theinformedconsentprovisionenactedin1978requiredthatawomanreceivecertainstatutorilydefinedinformationbeforeobtaininganabortion.Tenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(5)requiresthatawomanbeinformedthatifshechoosesnottohaveanabortionthat numerouspublicandprivateagenciesandservicesareavailabletoassistherduringherpregnancyandafterthebirthofherchild...whethershewishestokeepherchildorplacehim[orher]foradoption.Italsorequiresthatawomanbeinformedthat herphysicianwillprovideherwithalistofsuchagenciesandtheservicesavailableifshesorequests. Thephysiciansopposingtheabortionstatutesarguedthatthisprovisionrequiresphysicianstoprovidewomenwithalistofeveryavailableagencyandserviceprovidingprenatal,delivery,andpostdeliveryservicestopregnantmotherswhetherthephysicianwasawareoftheagencyornot.Theycomplainedthatphysicianswhoperformedabortionscouldbesubjectedtocriminalliabilityiftheydidnotknowabouteverysinglepublicorprivateagencythatmighthelppregnantwomendecidewhethertokeeptheirchildinsteadofhavinganabortion.Inresponsetotheseconcerns,thetrialcourtinterpretedTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(5)torequirephysicianstoinformtheirpatientsoftheagenciesandservices reasonablyknowntothephysician. ThelegislativedebatesconcerningthisprovisiondonotsubstantiatetheclaimthattheGeneralAssemblyenactedTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(5)torequirephysicianstoinformthemselvesofeverysinglepublicorprivateagencythatcouldpossiblyprovideservicestopregnantwomen.Likewise,theyprovidenosupportforthenotionthattheGeneralAssemblydesiredtosubjectphysicianstocriminalprosecutioniftheydidnotprovidetheirpatients,onrequest,withalistcontainingeachandeveryoneoftheseagencies.Rather,theGeneralAssemblyspurposewastomakesurethatwomenconsideringavoluntaryterminationoftheirpregnancyknewthattheywouldbeabletoobtainassistanceiftheydecidedtocontinuetheirpregnancy. WhilethephrasingofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(5)isawkward,itcannotreasonablybeinterpretedtorequirephysicians,underpenaltyofcriminalprosecution,tobeawareofeverysingleagencythatmightpossiblyprovideservicestopregnantwomenwhodesireassistance.Thephrase listofsuchagenciesandtheservicesavailabledoesnotconnotealistofallagenciesandservicesbutratherarepresentativelistofsuchagenciesandservices.Everyphysicianandclinicalemployeetestifiedthattheywereawareofagenciesprovidingservicestowomenwhodecidetocontinuetheirpregnancy,andmosttestifiedthattheyalreadymaintainedalistoftheseagenciesorthattheyhadreferredwomentotheseagenciesinthepast.Accordingly,thetrialcourtproperlyconstruedTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(5)torequirephysicianstoprovidearepresentativelistofagenciesreasonablyknowntothem.@ 3. @ The OrFollowingTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(5)  Thephysiciansopposingtheabortionstatutesalsocomplainthattheinclusionoftheword orbetweenTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(5)andTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(6)renderstheentireinformedconsentprovisionincomprehensible.Inresponse,theAttorneyGeneralintroducedevidencethattheoriginallegislationenactedbytheGeneralAssemblydidnotcontaintheword orandthatitfirstappearedinthe1982replacementofVolume7oftheCodebecauseofan editorialerror.Accordingly,thetrialcourt struckthewordfromthestatute. Theoriginalversionoftheinformedconsentprovisionenactedin1978didnotcontaintheword or.SeeActofMarch23,1978,ch.847,1978Tenn.Pub.Acts1078,1079.Nordidtheoriginalcodifiedversionofthelegislation.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.39302(Supp.1978).AsreflectedintheaffidavitoftheExecutiveSecretaryoftheTennesseeCodeCommission,the orfirstappearedin1982aftertheCodeCommissionreplacedVolume7oftheCode.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.394202(b)(1982replacementvolume). Thesefactsillustrateaclassiccircumstanceinwhichthecourtsmayproperlyelideawordfromastatute.Thewordwasmistakenlyincludedinthecodifiedversionsofthestatuteappearingafter1982eventhoughithadnotbeeninthelegislationenactedbytheGeneralAssembly.Includingtheconjunction orinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)causestheprovisiontobecomeinternallyinconsistentandcontrarytotheGeneralAssemblyspurpose.    ׀BecausetheGeneralAssemblyclearlyintendedthatawomanmustreceivealltheinformationspecifiedinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)beforeterminatingherpregnancy,thetrialcourtproperlyelidedthe orbetweenTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(5)andTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)(6)fromthestatute.@ 4. @ Tenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(2)  Tenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(2)requiresthat [_a]fter_Ԁthree(3)months,butbeforeviabilityofthefetus,abortionsmustbeperformedina hospitalasdefinedin6811201,licensedbythestatedepartmentofhealth,orahospitaloperatedbythestateofTennesseeorabranchofthefederalgovernment.Inresponsetothetestimonythatabortionsbetweenfourteenandeighteenweeksafterthefirstdayofawomanslastmenstrualperiodcouldbeperformedsafelyinambulatorysurgicalcenters,thetrialcourtconstruedtheword hospitalinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(2)toincludeambulatorysurgicalcenters forabortionsperformeduptoeighteenweeksmeasuredfromthefirstdayofawomanslastmenstrualperiod.WehavedeterminedthattheplainmeaningofTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(2)doesnotpermitthisconstruction. Thehospitalizationfor secondtrimesterabortionsoriginatedwiththe1973legislationthatrewroteTennesseesabortionstatutesinresponsetotheRoev.Wadedecision._    _ԀAtthetimetheGeneralAssemblyenactedthisstatute,thebroaddefinitionof hospitalincluded8 8 anyinstitution...representedandheldouttothegeneralpublicasready,willingandabletofurnishcare,accommodations,facilitiesandequipmentfortheuse,inconnectionwiththeservicesofaphysicianofone(1)ormore_nonrelated_Ԁpersonswhomaybesufferingfromdeformity,injury,ordiseaseorfromanyotherconditionforwhichnursing,medicalorsurgicalserviceswouldbeappropriateforcare,diagnosisortreatment.Tenn.CodeAnn.531301(a)(Supp.1973).Thestatutesregulatinghealthcarefacilitiesdidnotdistinguishbetweenhospitalandambulatorysurgicalcenters,andthedefinitionof hospitalinTenn.CodeAnn.531301(a)wasbroadenoughtoincludeambulatorysurgicalcenters. In1976,theGeneralAssemblyamendedthestatutesregulatinghealthcarefacilitiestorecognizeanewtypeoffacilitycalledan ambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcenter.    ׀Thesefacilitiesweredefinedas:8 8 [_A]ny_Ԁinstitution,placeorbuildingdevotedprimarilytothemaintenanceandoperationofafacilityfortheperformanceofsurgicalproceduresoranyfacilityinwhichamedicalorsurgicalprocedureisutilizedtoterminateapregnancy.Suchfacilitiesshallnotprovidebedsorotheraccommodationsfortheovernightstayofpatients.Individualpatientsshallbedischargedinanambulatoryconditionwithoutdangertothecontinuedwellbeingofthepatientsorshallbetransferredtoahospital.Tenn.CodeAnn.531301(o)(Supp.1976).Threeyearslater,theGeneralAssemblyamendedthedefinitionof ambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcenterstomakeclearthatpatientsreceivingabortionsatthesefacilitieswouldnotbepermittedtostayinoneofthesefacilitiesformorethantwelvehours.    ׀Thiscurrentdefinitionof ambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcenteriscodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.6811201(3). Byitsownterms,thedefinitionof ambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcenterrecognizesthatambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcentersarenothospitals.    ׀ThisdifferentiationisalsoreflectedintheTennesseeHealthPlanningandResourceDevelopmentActof1987,seeTenn.CodeAnn.6811102(4)(A)(1996)(definitionof healthcareinstitutionthatdifferentiatesbetweena hospitalandan ambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcenter),andintheregulationsoftheTennesseeHealthFacilitiesCommission._    _ԀAccordingly,underthelawexistingsince1976,hospitalsandambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcentersareentirelydifferententities. Whencalledupontoconstruestatutes,thecourtsmustpresumethattheGeneralAssemblyisawareofitspriorenactments,seeHicksv.State,945S.W.2d706,707(Tenn.1997);Wilsonv.JohnsonCounty,879S.W.2d807,810(Tenn.1994),andofthestateofthelawatthetimeitenactsnewlegislation.SeeRiggsv._Burson_,941S.W.2d44,54(Tenn.1997);Stillv.FirstTenn.Bank,N.A.,900S.W.2d282,285(Tenn.1995).Thus,whentheGeneralAssemblydifferentiatedbetweenambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcentersandhospitalsin1976,wemustpresumethatitwasawareoftheexistinghospitalizationrequirementforsecondtrimesterabortionsand,therefore,thatitdidnotintendforsecondtrimesterabortionstobeperformedinambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcenters.TheGeneralAssemblyhasrevisitedtheabortionstatutesonnineseparateoccasionssince1976,andonnoneoftheseoccasionshasitalteredthehospitalizationrequirementinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(2).Accordingly,thetrialcourterroneouslyundertooktoamendTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(2)whenitconstruedittopermitabortionsbetweenthefourteenthandeighteenthweeksfollowingawomanslastmenstrualperiodtobeperformedinambulatorysurgicaltreatmentcenters.@ 5.@ Tenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)  WhentheGeneralAssemblyenactedtheinformedconsentrequirementin1978,itrequiredthatawomanobtaininganabortionmustbe orallyinformedbyherattendingphysicianofcertain facts.FollowingthetestimonyofseveralphysiciansandcounselorsemployedbyPlannedParenthoodthatthepreabortioncounselingandinformedconsentdiscussionswereperformedbypersonsotherthanthephysicianperformingtheabortion,thetrialcourtconstruedTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)torequiretheattendingphysicianeitherto personallyprovidethemandatedinformationorto personallyconfirmwiththepatientthatshehasbeengiventheinformation.Neithertheplainmeaningofthewordsinthestatutenorthestatuteslegislativehistorysupportsthisconstruction. ThelanguageofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)isclearandunambiguous.Itrequiresthatawomans attendingphysicianmustbethepersonwhoprovidestherequiredinformation.Onitsface,thestatutedoesnotpermitthephysiciantodelegatehisorherstatutorycounselingandinformedconsentobligationtoanyotherperson.Thecertaintyofthelanguageisreinforcedbythesubstanceofthelegislatorsdiscussionsaboutthisprovisiononthirdandfinalreading.TheHousesponsorwasaskedrepeatedly, Whoisgoingtohavetheauthoritytodothisexplaining?.Oneveryoccasion,theHousesponsorrespondedthat thiswillbeherattendingphysician.Itwillbeherdoctorthat[sic]doesthis.Accordingly,thetrialcourterredbyimportinglanguageintoTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(b)thatisnotwarrantedbythetextandthatwasnotdesiredbytheGeneralAssembly.@ 6.@ Tenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)(Supp.1989)     ThetrialcourtsfinalconstructionoftheabortionstatutesrelatestothemedicalemergencyprovisioninTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)thatempowersphysicianstobypasstheinformedconsent,waitingperiod,andparentalnotificationprovisionsinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202whenthephysiciancertifiesthat anabortion...[is]necessarytopreservethelifeofthepregnantwoman.ThetrialcourtconstruedTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)toprovideanexceptionnotonlytotherequirementsinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202butalsotothoseinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201.ItalsoconstruedTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)toapplytocircumstanceswherethe healthofawomanisthreatened.Thetrialcourtagainexceededitsauthority.ItsconstructionofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)isnotsupportedbytheplainmeaningofthestatutorytextorbythelegislativehistoryoftheabortionstatutes. TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldinRoev.Wadethatthestateshave animportantandlegitimateinterestinpreservingandprotectingthehealthofthepregnantwoman.Roev.Wade,410U.S.at162,93S.Ct.at731.Accordingly,theCourtheldthatthestatescouldenactregulationsofsecondtrimesterabortionsthatreasonablyrelatetothepreservationandprotectionofmaternalhealth.SeeRoev.Wade,410U.S.at163,93S.Ct.at732.TheCourtalsoheldthatstatesmayprohibitabortionsafterafetusbecomesviable exceptwhenitisnecessarytopreservethelifeorhealth    ׀ofthemother.Roev.Wade,410U.S.at163164,93S.Ct.at732. WhentheGeneralAssemblyrewroteTennesseesabortionstatutesin1973,itendeavoredtocomplystrictlywiththemedicalemergencyrequirementintheRoev.Wadedecision.Theonlyrestrictionsplacedonabortionspriortoviabilitywere(1)thattheproceduremustbeperformedbyalicensedphysician,(2)thatthewomanmustconsenttotheprocedure,and(3)thattheproceduremustbeperformedinahospitalifitoccursafterthreemonthsbutbeforeviability.TheGeneralAssemblyalsoprohibitedabortionsafterthefetusbecameviableunlessthewomansattendingphysiciancertifiedinwritingthattheabortionis necessarytopreservethelifeorhealthofthemother.Tenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(3).     WhentheGeneralAssemblybeganplacingadditionalrestrictionsonawomansrighttodecidewhethertoterminateherpregnancy,itdeclinedtoincludemedicalemergencyexceptionsasbroadastheoneinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(3).Whenitfirstenactedtheinformedconsentandwaitingperiodrequirementsin1978,theGeneralAssemblydidnotincludeamedicalemergencyexception.    ׀Duringthenextlegislativesession,however,theGeneralAssemblyaddedtwomedicalemergencyexceptionsapplicabletotheinformedconsentandwaitingperiodrequirements.First,Tenn.CodeAnn.3915202(d)(3)permittedaphysiciantobypassthewaitingperiodifheorshedeterminedthatwaitingtwodays wouldendangerthelifeofthepregnantwoman.    ׀Second,Tenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)providedamedicalemergencyexceptionforallrequirementsinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202 inthosesituationswhereanabortioniscertified...asnecessarytopreservethelifeofthepregnantwoman.    ׀ UnderthestatutesasenactedbytheGeneralAssembly,womenmayobtainabortionsaftertheirfetusisviableiftheirattendingphysiciancertifiesthattheabortionisnecessarytopreservetheirlifeorhealth.However,womencannotreceiveanabortionuntiltheycomplywiththeinformedconsentandwaitingperiodrequirementsinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202unlesstheirattendingphysiciancertifiesthateithertheinformedconsentrequirementorthewaitingperiodorbothwouldendangertheirlives.    ׀ TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasmadeitclearthatstatescannotinterferewithawomansdecisiontohaveanabortionifcontinuingthewomanspregnancywouldconstituteathreattoherhealth.SeePlannedParenthoodv.Casey,505U.S.at880,112S.Ct.at2822;Harrisv._McRae_,448U.S.297,316,100S.Ct.2671,268788(1980);Roev.Wade,410U.S.at16465,93S.Ct.at732.Thus,thetrialcourtsconstructionofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)clearlystemmedfromitsdesiretosavetheconstitutionalityoftheabortionstatutes.Whilecourtsshould,whenpossible,construestatutestoavoidthedangerofunconstitutionality,seeOhiov.AkronCtr.forReproductiveHealth,497U.S.502,514,110S.Ct.2972,2980(1990),theycannotadoptaconstructionthatisnotfairlysupportedbytheplainmeaningofthestatuteslanguageorthatiseitherinconsistentwithornotclearlysupportedbythepurposeofthestatute. MedicalemergencyexceptionstoprotectthemothershealthhavebeenthesubjectofintensepublicandlegislativedebateeversincetheRoev.Wadedecisionwasissued.BecauseoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsbroadconstructionoftheterm healthinDoev.Bolton,410U.S.at192,93S.Ct.at747,manyhavearguedthattoconstruemedicalemergencyexceptionstoprotectamothershealthwastopermit abortionondemand.Eventhejusticesthemselveshavebeendividedonthisissue.ComparePlannedParenthoodv.Casey,505U.S.at887,112S.Ct.at2826(statingthateventhebroadestreadingofRoehasnotsuggestedthereisaconstitutionalrighttoabortionondemand)withPlannedParenthoodv.Casey,505U.S.at995,112S.Ct.at2882(Scalia,J.,concurringinthejudgmentanddissentinginpart)(characterizingRoev.Wadeasamandateforabortionondemand);Thornburghv.AmericanCollegeofObstetricians&Gynecologists,476U.S.at78283,106S.Ct.at2190(Burger,C.J.,dissenting)(statingthattheCourtsopinionplainlyunderminesitsearlierrejectionoftheideaofabortionondemand). Thelegislativeconcernoverthepotentialexpansiveinterpretationofprovisionsthatpermitabortionstoprotectthehealthofthemotherhasmanifesteditselfinthecontextofdebatesconcerningpublicfundingforabortionsand,morerecently,withregardtolegislationproscribing partialbirthabortions.Inordertoavoidtheexpansiveinterpretationoftheterm health,bothfederalandstatelegislatorshavelimitedthemedicallynecessaryabortionsthatmustbefundedundertheMedicaidProgram,TitleXIXoftheSocialSecurityAct,tothosewherephysicaldisorders,injuries,orillnesseswouldplacethewomanindangerofdeathunlessanabortionisperformed.SeePlannedParenthoodAffiliatesofMichiganv._Engler_,73F.3d634,638(6thCir.1996)(quoting139Cong.Rec.S12,581(dailyed.Sept.28,1993)(statementofSenatorHatch));ActofApril28,1992,ch.1018,10,Item4,1992Tenn.Pub.Acts1059,109091(containinglimitationsontheuseofstatefundsforabortions);HouseBill3309/SenateBill3307,100thGeneralAssembly(1998),10,Item4(limitingtheuseofstatefundstoabortions whereanabortionisnecessarytosavethelifeofthemotherorwherethepregnancyistheresultofanactofrapeorincest).Likewise,theGeneralAssemblyhaspermitted partialbirthabortionsonlywhentheyare necessarytosavethe_life_Ԁofthemotherwhoselifeisendangeredbyaphysicaldisorder,illnessorinjury.Tenn.CodeAnn.3915209(c)(1997).     Despitethetestimonyofthephysicianswhosupportedthestatutesbeingchallengedinthiscase,theterms lifeand healthinthecontextofemergencymedicalexceptionsdonotmeanthesamethingastheyarecommonlyunderstoodtomean.Whilethereisconsensusthatabortionsshouldbepermittedtosavethelifeofthemotherwhensheisinimmediatedanger,thereisnoconsensusconcerningwhetheranemergencymedicalexceptiontosaveamotherslifealsoincludesprocedurestoprotectthemotherfromphysicalimpairmentorpsychologicalimpairmentthatisnotlifethreateningorprocedurestoendapregnancywhenchildbirthwouldseverelycrippleawomanschanceforasuccessfullifeherself. TheonlyreasonableinterpretationoftheplainmeaningofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)isthatitpermitsbypassingtherequirementsofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202onlywhen necessarytopreservethelifeofthepregnantwoman.AreviewoftheotherstatutespertainingtoabortionsclearlydemonstratesthattheGeneralAssemblyknowshowtoprovidebroadermedicalemergencyexceptionswhenitchoosestodoso.ItdefinedthemedicalemergencyexceptioningeneraltermsinTenn.CodeAnn.3915201(c)(3)withregardtothirdtrimesterabortionsandinTenn.CodeAnn.3710305withregardtotheparentalconsentrequirement.Thus,wemustconcludethattheGeneralAssemblypurposelydecidedtolimitthescopeofTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)tocircumstanceswherebypassingtheproceduresinTenn.CodeAnn.3915202becamenecessarytopreservethemotherslife.Accordingly,thetrialcourterredbyinterpretingTenn.CodeAnn.3915202(h)toapplyincircumstanceswherethehealthofawomanisthreatened.@ IV.  ApivotalissueinthiscaseconcernstheappropriatestandardfordeterminingtheconstitutionalityofthechallengedprovisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.3915201,202.EventhoughtheconstitutionalchallengesarebasedontheConstitutionofTennessee,bothpartiesdrawlegalsupportfortheirpositionslargelyfromfederalprecedentsconstruingtheUnitedStatesConstitution.ThePlannedParenthoodplaintiffsassertthattheConstitutionofTennesseerequiresnothinglessthanthestrictstandardof_review_ԀemployedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinRoev.Wade.TheStaterespondsthatawomansfundamentalrighttorefrainfromprocreatingisadequatelyprotectedusingthe undueburdenstandardemployedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinPlannedParenthoodv.Casey.@ A.  Thearchitectsofourfederalformofgovernmentlookedtostateconstitutionstoprovidetheprimaryprotectionofindividualliberties.Accordingly,neithertheArticlesofConfederationnortheUnitedStatesConstitution,asoriginallyadopted,containedadeclarationofrights.SeeRobertAllen_Rutland_,TheBirthoftheBillofRights,17761791,at78,100,106(1955)( _Rutland_).WhentheFirstCongressapprovedtheBillofRightsin1789,itsprovisionsweredrawnlargelyfromstateconstitutionsandbillsofrights.SeeEdward_Dumbauld_,TheBillofRightsandWhatItMeansToday16065(1957);EugeneW._Hickock_,Jr.,IntroductionoftheBillofRights:OriginalMeaningandCurrentUnderstanding17(EugeneW._Hickock_,Jr.,ed.1991);CraigR.Smith,ToFormaMorePerfectUnion,TheRatificationoftheConstitutionandtheBillofRights17871791,at128(1993).Thus,mostoftheprovisionsinthestateandfederaldeclarationsofrightsshareacommonancestry.SeePaulW.Kahn,InterpretationandAuthorityinStateConstitutionalism,106_Harv_.L.Rev.1147,115961(1993)( Kahn);_Rutland_,at13,74.Althoughtheirwordsdiffer,theseprovisionsembodyrestatementsoffundamentalprinciplescommonlyacceptedatthetime.SeeStatev.Staten,46Tenn.(6Cold.)233,264(1869);Wallace_McClure_,StateConstitutionMakingWithEspecialReferencetoTennessee211(1916);EdwardT.Sanford,TheConstitutionalConventionof1796,ProceedingsoftheFifteenthAnnualMeetingoftheBarAssociationofTennessee92,108(Nashville,Marshall&BruceCo.1896). TheprimacyofstatedeclarationsofrightscontinueduntiltheratificationofthepostCivilWaramendmentswhich,overtime,alteredtheoriginalstructureoffederalismtoallowfederalprotectionforindividualrightsthroughtheDueProcessandEqualProtectionClausesoftheFourteenthAmendment.Todaymanyofourpersonallibertiesareprotectedbyboththestateandthefederalconstitutions. Therelationshipbetweentheprotectionsofthestateandfederalconstitutionsiswellunderstood.ThefederalBillofRightsprovidesabasiclevelofprotectionforindividualliberties,whichstatelawsandconstitutionalprovisionsmaynotviolate.See_McDaniel_Ԁv._Paty_,435U.S.618,62829,98S.Ct.1322,132829(1978);_Girdner_Ԁv.Stephens,48Tenn.(1_Heisk_.)280,28384(1870);UnionBankv.State,17Tenn.(9_Yer_.)489,49495(1836).However,stateconstitutionsmayprovidegreaterprotectionormayevenprotectrightsthatarenotprotectedbytheUnitedStatesConstitution.SeeStatev.Barnett,909S.W.2d423,430n.6(Tenn.1995);Burfordv.State,845S.W.2d204,207(Tenn.1992);Davisv.Davis,842S.W.2d588,600(Tenn.1992)._    _ԀAsaresultoftheoverlappingprotectionsinthestateandfederalconstitutions,manystatecourtsbecameaccustomedtofollowingtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsleadinarticulatingconstitutionalprinciples.TheyconformedtheirinterpretationsofstateconstitutionalprovisionstotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsinterpretationofanalogousfederalconstitutionalprovisions.