WPC] /zEz4RˋK%kwGd{^O/#(|a>$ -X5n7jr]xė|d VJK-E--me5UC޺,&_Tcn^:If<.EFIhmjד9|>{Rn\W 4Yw?ڣǿԟ" SW~K wWݿҁܙ܇6,p U<?$t}"jkyFzLW263_~9?`?PuO+98**_)iiD-yKl|[Z,o#K .K fw ?ĮZ`qŬUƛq Qh*ؐ gKR]0T~l8U>/cˀ,ȟ2\2AOh};!@)ԭj9UB> 0n\! 0 % 0[ 0  0t U:) Bc 0 C  bOW 1u_l42 72 0cNU@""UNg#d#.8EG: I:I: 0 WhDE 0 E#iFUN*H*HMxH(|HNH^ HwH4HH mHH-HHI,MSSSX\  `&Times New Roman<:Default ParaXXX  (..       XX XXX X  _ @ o[X` hp x (#(#'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo(2$ ${!..       XäX XGXX Xä   (2$ ${!..       XäX XGXX Xä   *..       XX XXX X  _ @ (2$ ${!..       XäX XGXX Xä    )..       XX XXX X  _ @ (2$ ${!..       XäX XGXX Xä  ,iAZ"Arial Regular d($      "$..       XX XXX X  =dd=XXX    5    _ X=Xdd=ӀTheCourtalsoconsideredabanontheuseofpublicfundstoencouragewomentohavemoretherapeutic  abortionsanddeterminedthattheissuewasmoot.Webster,492U.S.at51213,109S.Ctat305354.- - 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)  "$..       XX XXX X  =dd=XXX    8    _ X=Xdd=ӀThedissentmisinterpretsourholdinginthisregard.Itstatesthat theCourthasevendeclaredtodaythatit  remainsopposedtoanyassertionthatpriorcasesinterpretingourconstitutionshouldcontroltheoutcomeofthiscase. o Wedonotsuggestthatprecedenthasnovalueininterpretingourconstitution.Thefact,however,thatpreviousdecisions .~ haveheldthatourconstitutionalprovisionsaresynonymouswiththeirfederalcounterpartsdoesnotmeanthatweare = notfreetointerprettheprovisionsofourconstitutionwithrespecttoaparticularrightinsuchawayastogivestronger  protectiontoindividualliberties.  ${!..       XX XXX X  _  o[X` hp x (#(#'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo    10   XXԀThelowercourtsheldunconstitutional202(b)(4),theinformedconsentsubsectionrequiringphysicians  toinformpatientsthat abortioninaconsiderablenumberofcasesconstitutesamajorsurgicalprocedure.TheState o hasnotappealedthatholding,andthatsubsectionisnotbeforeus.  ${!..       XX XXX X  _  o[X` hp x (#(#'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo    11   XXWeobserve,however,thatsomeoftheprovisionsarenarrowlytailoredtofurthertheStatesinterestin  maternalhealth,suchastherequirementthatthewomanbetoldsheispregnantandtheprobablegestationalageofthe  fetus.PlannedParenthoodtacitlyconcedesthispoint. ( ${!..       XX XXX X  _  o[X` hp x (#(#'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo    12  ڀ XXAlthoughwedidnotgrantpermissiontoappealtheissue,defendantsalsoarguethatPlannedParenthoodis  collaterally_ estopped_ ԀfromchallengingthetwodaywaitingperiodrequirementbecauseofdictacontainedinPlanned o ParenthoodofMemphisv.Alexander󀀀Inholdingthatthewaitingperiodwasunconstitutionalunderthestrictscrutiny .~ standard,Judge_ Wellford_ Ԁcommentedthathewasnotpersuadedthatthewaitingperiodconstitutesanundueburden. = EvenassumingthatthepartiestotheAlexandercasearethesamepartiesinthepresentcontroversy,andassumingthat  thepartieshadafullandfairopportunitytopresenttheirpositionsintheearliercase,thetwocasesinvolvedifferent k issues.TheissuebeforethisCourtiswhetherthewaitingperiodfurthersacompellingstateinterestundertheTennessee * z Constitution,andwearethefinalarbitersofsuchaquestion.Accordingly,inourview,thedefendantscollateral  9 estoppelargumentiswithoutmerit.i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (uH Z(Times New Roman   "$..       XX XXX X  =dd=XXX    7    _ X=Xdd=ӀOurholdingdoesnoviolencetopreviousTennesseeprivacycasesthathaveapplieddifferenttestsfor  determiningwhetheraprivacyinterestrosetothelevelofafundamentalright.Differenttestsmaybewarrantedin o differentcontexts. '..       XX XXX X  _ @ ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular Z "$..       XX XXX X  =dd=XXX    6    _ X=Xdd=ӀAsregardsthefederallevel,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasaffordedprivacyprotectiontomattersof  marriage.See_ Zablocki_ Ԁv._ Redhail_ ,434U.S.374,38386,98_ S.Ct_ .673,679681,54L.Ed2d618(1978)(identifying o righttomarryasprotectedbyrighttoprivacy);_ Boddie_ Ԁv.Connecticut,401U.S.371,383,91_ S.Ct_ .780,789,28_ L.Ed_ .2d .~ 113(1971)(holdingcourtmaynotdenydissolutionofmarriagetoindigentssolelybasedonfailuretopayfilingfees); = Lovingv.Virginia,388U.S.1,1112,87_ S.Ct_ .1817,182324,18_ L.Ed_ .2d1010(1967)(invalidatingstatuteprohibiting  interracialmarriage);Griswoldv.Connecticut,381U.S.479,48586,85_ S.Ct_ .1678,1682,14_ L.Ed_ .2d510(1965) k (findinglawprohibitinguseofcontraceptivestoviolaterightofmaritalprivacy). * z   Individualchoicesregardingfamilyandchildrearingalsofallundertherighttoprivacy.SeeMoorev.City   ofE.Cleveland,431U.S.494,506,97_ S.Ct_ .1932,1939,52_ L.Ed_ .2d531(1977)(pluralityopinion)(invalidatingzoning g   ordinancethatessentiallyprohibitedlivingwithextendedfamily);Piercev.SocietyofSisters,268U.S.510,53435, & v  45_ S.Ct_ .571,573,69_ L.Ed_ .1070(1925)(invalidatinglawrequiringchildrentoattendpublicschoolsinsteadof,as  5  parentswished,privateschool);Meyerv.Nebraska,262U.S.390,403,43_ S.Ct_ .625,628,67_ L.Ed_ .1042(1923)    (invalidatinglawwhichprohibitedtheteachingofforeignlanguagestochildreninspiteofparentswishes). C  c    Mattersregardingprocreationimplicatetherighttoprivacy.SeeCareyv.Population_ Servs_ ._ Intl_ ,431U.S.678, 1  69091,97_ S.Ct_ .2010,201819,52_ L.Ed_ .2d675(1977)(invalidatingstatuteprohibitingsaleof_ nonmedical_    contraceptivesbynonpharmacists);Roev.Wade,410U.S.at164,93_ S.Ct_ .at732(1973)(invalidatinglawsprohibiting _  abortion);_ Eisenstadt_ Ԁv.Baird,405U.S.438,45455,92_ S.Ct_ .1029,1039,31_ L.Ed_ .2d349(1972)(invalidatinglaws n  prohibitingsaleofcontraceptivestounmarriedpersons);Griswoldv.Connecticut,381U.S.at48586,85_ S.Ct_ .at1682 - (1965);Skinnerv.Oklahoma,316U.S.535,541,62_ S.Ct_ .1110,1113,86_ L.Ed_ .1655(1942)(invalidatingmandatory  sterilizationplanofcertainconvictedfelons). [   Also,tosomedegree,mattersregardingbodilyintegrityandpersonalautonomyimplicateprivacyinterests. ) SeePlannedParenthoodofCent.Mo.vR  .# R#ԀDanforth,428U.S.52,71,96_ S.Ct_ .2831,2842,49_ L.Ed_ .2d788(1976)  (invalidating_ spousal_ Ԁconsentprovisionofabortionstatutesstating, Inasmuchasitisthewomanwhophysicallybears  thechildandwhoisthemoredirectlyandimmediatelyaffectedbythepregnancy,asbetweenthe[womanandher c husband],thebalanceweighsinherfavor.);cf._ Rochin_ Ԁv.California,342U.S.165,174,72_ S.Ct_ .205,210211,96 "r _ L.Ed_ .183(1952)(findingdueprocessviolationfromlawenforcementsinvasionofadefendantsbodytoobtain 1 inculpatoryevidence). $ "%[$USUS.,=wXdd=    2    _ ` WhiletheSupremeCourtdecidedPierceandMeyerbeforeithadarticulatedthe  constitutionalrighttoprivacyinGriswold,thelibertyinterestsidentifiedinthosecaseswere  subsequentlyidentifiedasprotectedbytherighttoprivacy.SeeRoev.Wade,410U.S.113, | 152-53(1973).  "$..       XX XXX X  =dd=XXX    1    _=Xdd=Ӏ XForclarification,wenotethatthefollowingissuesarenotbeforethisCourt:theprovisionrequiringthata  womanseekinganabortionbeaTennesseeresident,Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-201(d);theprovisionsregulating  abortionsperformedonminors,Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202(f)f  g (Supp.1989)f  g Ԁ(repealed)(nowcodifiedatTenn.Code U Ann.37-10-301f  g f  g Ԁthroughf  g -307);andtheprovisionbanningpostviabilityabortionsexcepttopreservethelifeorhealth d ofthewoman,Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-201(c)(3). #   TheStatechosenottodefendtheconstitutionalityoftheresidencyrequirement,andthetrialcourtstruckitas  unconstitutional.Regardingtheprovisionsregulatingminorsabortions,Tenn.CodeAnn.3915202(f)containeda Q  parentalnotificationrequirement,awaitingperiodrequirement,andamedicalemergencyexceptiontothese  ` requirementswhennecessary topreservethelifeorhealthofthepregnantminor,202(f).Whilethecasewas   pendinginthetrialcourt,however,thef  g f  g Gf  g eneralf  g f  g Af  g ssemblyrepealedtheparentalnotificationrequirement.-202(f).See    1995Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.458.TheGeneralAssemblyreplacedtheparentalnotificationrequirementwiththeparental M   consentrequirement,nowTenn.CodeAnn.37-10-301f  g f  g Ԁthroughf  g Ԁ-307. TheCourtofAppealsconcludedthat3915  \  202(f)hadbeenrepealedbyimplicationandrefusedtoexpressanopinionregardingtheconstitutionalityofTenn.Code    Ann.37-10-301through-307.Plaintiffsdidnotchallengetheprovisionsrelatingtopost-viabilityabortions.((2$ ${!..       XäX XGXX Xä    =dd=GXXXG    0  #|x(r{$..      &X|XX&XX|XX&X|HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular y/) r')ǥU ##mXd#  "$..       XX XXX X  =dd=XXX    2    _ X=Xdd=ӀThecourtconstruedtheterm hospitalinthesecondtrimesterhospitalizationrequirementtoinclude   ambulatorysurgicalcenter,Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-201(c)(2).Thecourtfurtherconstruedthemedicalemergency o exceptionsoastoextendprotectionfornotonlythe life,butalsothe healthofthepatientf  g f  V  g .f  W<g ԀTenn.CodeAnn. .~ 39-15-202(d)(3).f  V  g    f  Wg  ~ "$..       XX XXX X  =dd=XXX    3    _XXX XX=Xdd=ӀWeemphasizeatthispointthattheholdinginDavisthatthestateconstitutionprotectsarighttoprivacywhich  includesprocreationalautonomywasbaseduponspecificprovisionsoftheTennesseeConstitution.Althoughwedid o notspecificallyruleinDavisastowhetherthestateconstitutionalrighttoprocreationalautonomyisbroaderthanthe .~ federalconstitutionalright,wedidnotrestourholdingwithregardtotherighttoprivacyonUnitedStatesSupreme = Courtprecedent.Wereaffirmtheholdingthattherightofprivacy,includingtherightofprocreationalautonomy,arises  fromspecificprovisionsofthestateconstitution,includingarticleI,1and2(providingthatallpowerininherentin k thepeopleandthatthepeoplemayalter,reform,orabolishthegovernmentandthatthedoctrineofnonresistance * z againstarbitrarypowerandoppressionisdestructiveofthegoodandhappinessofmankind).Tenn.Const.art.I,1  9 and2.SeealsoTenn.Const.art.I,3,7,8,19,and27.  "$..       XX XXX X  =dd=XXX    4    _ X=Xdd=ӀSincetheirenactment,theseprovisionshavebeenthesubjectofconstitutionalchallengesinbothstateand  federalcourt.SeePlannedParenthoodofMemphisv._ Blanton_ ,No.78-2310(W.D.Tenn.July14,1978)(continuing o thetemporaryinjunctionagainstthewaitingperiodrequirements);PlannedParenthoodofNashville,Inc.v.Alexander, .~ No.79-843-II(DavidsonChanc.Oct.19&24,1979)(temporarilyenjoiningimpositionofcriminalpenaltiesasrelated = toinformedconsentandwaitingperiodrequirements);PlannedParenthoodofMemphisv.Alexander,No.78-2310  (W.D.Tenn.Mar.23,1981)(permanentlyenjoiningenforcementofthe1978waitingperiodstatute). y "$..       XX XXX X  =dd=XXX    9    _ X=Xdd=ӀThedissentcriticizesthisCourts undueburdenanalysisbystatingthattheCourthascitednolegal  authorityoranalysisinreachingtheconclusionthatthechallengedregulationsareunconstitutionalunderthe undue o burdentest.However,wehaveindeedconductedananalysisfocusinguponwhethertheeffectoftheregulationcreates .~ anundueburdenuponthepersonseekinganabortion.Moreover,theonly legalauthoritywhichneedbecitedisthe = Caseyopinionsinceitpresumablysetsforththestandardandtheanalysiswhichmustbefollowedifthe undueburden  testisfollowed. ${!..       XX XXX X  _     0p x (#X0  8  XXdd8  1|=Xdd=RXXQ9 9 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  Q$ATNASHVILLE   @ #XXR#RXXOctober1999Session#XXR#Ԉ  H.` hp x (#X(#H  RXXPLANNEDPARENTHOODOFMIDDLETENNESSEE,etal.v.DON   _SUNDQUIST_,GOVERNOROFTHESTATEOFTENNESSEE,etal.      #XXR#3p x (#X(#3Q   AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,MiddleSection   @  CircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty     Q No.92C1672HamiltonV._Gayden_,Jr.,JudgeH.` hp x (#X(#H  j  3p x (#X(#3 X#XXX@\\'A ) ` dE<` A߈   @No. #XXXX##Ԁ M199600060SCR11CVX#XXXԈ T  @!#XXXX##&XXXXSeptember15,2000#XXX&X#X#XXXԈ ; A ) ` dE<` A !  #XXXX#R#Q*  ThisisanappealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty,whichappliedanundueburden  standardandstruckdownasunconstitutionaltheprovisionsofTennesseescriminalabortion p statutesrequiringthatphysiciansinformtheirpatientsthat abortioninaconsiderablenumberof V casesconstitutesamajorsurgicalprocedure,Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202(b)(4)(1997),and < mandatingatwodaywaitingperiodrequirement,39-15-202(d)(1).Thetrialcourtupheldthe " secondtrimesterhospitalizationrequirement,39-15-201(c)(2),theremaininginformedconsent r requirements,39-15-202(b)(1)(3),(b)(5)(c),andthemedicalemergencyexceptions, X 39-15-202(d)(3),(g).TheCourtofAppealsreversedthejudgmentofthetrialcourtinpartand > affirmedinpart.TheCourtofAppealsupheldthefollowingprovisionsasnotimposingan $ undueburden:thewaitingperiodrequirement,baseduponthefactsofthiscase,thesecond   trimesterhospitalizationrequirement,and,exceptforthe majorsurgicalprocedureprovision,  theremaininginformedconsentrequirements.Wegrantedapplicationforpermissiontoappeal l  thoseissuesoffirstimpression.Wespecificallyholdthatawomansrighttoterminateher R! pregnancyisavitalpartoftherighttoprivacyguaranteedbytheTennesseeConstitution.We 8"  furtherholdthattherightisinherentintheconceptoforderedlibertyembodiedinour #! constitutionandisthereforefundamental .Accordingly,thestatutesregulatingthisfundamental $n" rightmustbesubjectedtostrictscrutinyanalysis.Whenreviewedunderthecorrectstandard,we $T# concludethatnoneofthestatutoryprovisionsatissuewithstandsuchscrutiny.TheCourtof %: $ Appealsjudgmentisthereforeaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart. & !%  @Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCourtofAppeals@@Affirmedin@@  @ @ @ @  ("' @  PartandReversedinPart;CaseRemandedtoTrialCourt.  h)#(   4+%* 1| 18#XXd XXd8 1  _ E.RileyAnderson,C.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich FrankF.Drowota,III,   AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,andJaniceM.Holder,JJ.,joined.WilliamM.Barker,J.,fileda | dissentingopinion. b BarryFriedman,VanderbiltUniversitySchoolofLaw,Nashville,Tennessee;IrwinVenick, .  Nashville,Tennessee;ElizabethB.McCallum,Washington,D.C.;BarbaraE.Otten,Dara  ~ Klassel,andRogerK.Evans,PLANNEDPARENTHOODFEDERATIONOFAMERICA,  d INC.,NewYork,NewYork;LouiseMellingandCatherineWeiss,AMERICANCIVIL  J LIBERTIESFOUNDATIONREPRODUCTIVEFREEDOMPROJECT,NewYork,NewYork,  0 attorneysfortheappellant,PlannedParenthoodofMiddleTennessee,etal.    PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;Andy x  D.Bennett,ChiefDeputyAttorneyGeneral;andMichaelW.Catalano,AssociateSolicitor ^  General,attorneysfortheappellees,DonSundquist,GovernoroftheStateofTennessee,etal. D  MirandaSchillerandIlyssaM.Birnbach,NewYork,NewYork,andDiannaBakerShaw, z  Nashville,Tennessee,attorneysforAmicusCuriae,AmericanCollegeofObstetriciansand ` Gynecologists. F KevinH.Theriot,PanamaCityBeach,Florida;LarryL.Crain,Brentwood,Tennessee;andGary  S.McCaleb,Scottsdale,Arizona,attorneysforAmicusCuriae,TennesseeRighttoLife.  ElizabethCavendishandScottGrogan,Washington,D.C.,andAnnMartin,Nashville, Z Tennessee,attorneysforAmiciCuriae,TheNationalAbortionandReproductiveRightsAction @ League,TheNARALFoundation,TheLeagueofWomenVotersofTennessee,TheTennessee & TaskForceAgainstDomesticViolence,andtheNationalCouncilofJewishWomen.  v PaulBenjaminLinton,Northbrook,Illinois,andClintonW.Watkins,Brentwood,Tennessee, B attorneysforAmiciCuriae,MembersoftheTennesseeGeneralAssembly. ( KeithJordan,Nashville,Tennessee,andJ.ThomasSmith,Franklin,Tennessee,attorneysfor   AmicusCuriae,Dr.KentJones,etal.,onBehalfoftheTennesseePhysiciansResourceCouncil. p! 6p x (#X(#6@55' OPINION  "$" H.` hp x (#X(#H  Wegrantedthisappealtoreviewtheconstitutionalityf  g off  g Tennesseesabortionstatutes, %X $ whichrestrictthecircumstancesunderwhichawomanmayobtainanabortionandimpose &>!% criminalliabilityuponphysicianswhofailtocomplywiththestatutoryrestrictionsand '$"& requirements.Afterourreviewoftherecordandapplicableauthority,weconcludethatthe ( #' CourtofAppealserredinfailingtoapplytheappropriatestandardundertheTennessee )#( Constitution.Weconcludethatawomansrighttoterminateherpregnancyisavitalpartofthe l*$) righttoprivacyguaranteedbytheTennesseeConstitution.Asthisrightisinherentinthe R+%* conceptoforderedlibertyembodiedintheTennesseeConstitution,weconcludethattherightto 8,&+ terminateonespregnancyisfundamental.Thestandardwehavetraditionallyappliedto  fundamentalrightsrequiresthatstatutesregulatingfundamentalrightsbesubjectedtostrict | scrutinyanalysis.Moreover,whenreviewedunderthestrictscrutinystandard,weconcludethat b noneofthestatutoryprovisionsatissuewithstandsuchscrutiny.TheCourtofAppeals H judgmentisthereforeaffirmedinpart andreversedinpart. .     @` I.PROCEDURALBACKGROUND   J $  TheabortionstatutesatissueinthisappealarecodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.    39-15-201f  g f  g Ԁandf  g Ԁ-202(1997).f  g f  g Amongotherthings,tf  g hesef  g f  g statutesf  g Ԁmandatethatsecondtrimester   abortionsbeperformedinahospital,201(c)(2)(thesecondtrimesterhospitalization x  requirement);thatthe attendingphysicianinformthepatientofstatutorilyprescribed ^  informationf  g ,f  g Ԁ202(b)f  ,g f  g Ԁandf  g Ԁ(c)(theinformedconsentandphysicianonlycounseling D  requirements);thatafterreceivingthisinformation,thepatientmustwaitamandatorytwof  g f  g Ԅf  g day *  periodbeforereturningtotheattendingphysician,signingaconsentform,andobtainingthe z  abortion,202(d)(1)(themandatorywaitingperiodrequirement);and,finally,thatmedical ` emergencyexceptionstothetwof  g f  g Ԅf  g daywaitingperiodrequirementandtheinformedconsent F requirementsarepermittedwhenthepatientslifewouldotherwisebeindanger,202(d)(3)f  ,g f  g  , andf  g Ԁ(g)(themedicalemergencyexceptions).     1          Plaintiffs,includingPlannedParenthoodAssociationofNashville,Inc.,Memphis t PlannedParenthood,Inc.,WashingtonHill,M.D.,PeterCartwright,M.D.,andFrankBoehm, Z M.D.,[hereinafter PlannedParenthood],filedsuitintheDavidsonCountyCircuitCourt @ seekingdeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefunderboththestateandfederalconstitutions.Planned & ParenthoodallegedthatcertainprovisionsofTennesseescriminalabortionstatutes,including  v thoselistedabove,violateawomansrightstoliberty,privacy,procreationalautonomy,due \ process,equalprotectionofthelaws,freedomoftravel,freedomofconscience,andfreedomof B  speechunderf  g f  g articlef  g ԀI,1,2,3,7,8,19,27andf  g f  g articlef  g ԀXI,8,16oftheTennessee ( Constitution;andf  g f  g articlef  g ԀI,8;f  g f  g articlef  g ԀIV,2f  ;g andf  ,g ԀtheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnited  StatesConstitution. |    PlannedParenthoodarguedattrialthatthisCourtsdecisioninDavisv.Davis,842 H S.W.2d588,600(Tenn.1992),recognizedthattherighttoprocreationalautonomyisa .  fundamentalrightandthat,consequently,Tennesseescriminalabortionstatutescannotbe  ~ upheldbecausetheyarenotnarrowlytailoredtofurthercompellingstateinterests.TheState  d arguedthatDavisshouldbeabandonedinlightoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsabortion  J decisioninPlannedParenthoodv.Casey,505U.S.833,112S.Ct.2791,120L.Ed.2d674  0 (1992).IntheCaseyjointopinion,the strictscrutinyconstitutionalstandardofreview    announcedinRoev.Wade,410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147(1973),thestandard   mostprotectiveoffundamentalconstitutionalrights,wasabandoned,andthe undueburden x  standard,astandardwhichaffordsstatesbroaderpowerstoenactregulatorylegislation,was ^  adopted.Casey,505U.S.at878,112S.Ct.at2821(jointopinionofOConnor,Kennedy,and D  Souter,JJ.) *    Thetrialcourtappliedtheundueburdenstandardandstruckdownthewaitingperiod ` requirement,Tenn.CodeAnn.3915202(d)(1),andtheinformedconsentsubsectionrequiring F thatphysiciansinformtheirpatientsthat abortioninaconsiderablenumberofcasesconstitutes , amajorsurgicalprocedure,202(b)(4).Thetrialcourt,however,upheldthesecondtrimester  hospitalizationrequirement,theremaininginformedconsentrequirements,andthemedical  emergencyexceptions.3    2       t   TheCourtofAppealsf  Ԁexpressedtheviewthatourdescriptionofthenatureandscopeof @ therightofprocreationalautonomyinDaviswasbased exclusivelyondecisionsoftheUnited & StatesSupremeCourt,f  g 4    3      ׀andf  g ԀthatPlannedParenthoodv.Caseysundueburdenstandardis  v consistentwiththerightofprocreationalprivacyrecognizedinDavis.TheCourtofAppeals \ foundthatCaseysundueburdenstandard appropriatelybalancesawomansrightto B procreationalautonomywiththeStatessignificantinterestinprotectingmaternalhealthand ( potentialhumanlifeandadoptedtheundueburdenstandard.  Ї  TheCourtofAppealsf  g concludedthatthefollowingprovisionsareunconstitutionalfor  imposinganundueburden:theresidencyrequirement,Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-201(d);the | informedconsentsubsectionrequiringthattheattendingphysicianinformthewomanthat b  abortioninaconsiderablenumberofcasesconstitutesamajorsurgicalprocedure,Tenn.Code H Ann.39-15-202(b)(4);themedicalemergencyexceptions,Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202(d)(3), .  (g);andtheattendingphysiciancounselingrequirement,whencombinedwiththewaitingperiod  ~ requirement,Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202(b),(d)(1).TheCourtofAppealsupheldthe  d followingprovisionsasnotimposinganundueburden:thewaitingperiodrequirement,based  J uponthefactsofthiscase,Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202(d)(1),thesecondtrimester  0 hospitalizationrequirement,Tenn.CodeAnnf  g Ԁ39-15-201(c)(2),andtheremaininginformed    consentprovisions,Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202(b)(1)(3),(b)(5)(c).       Wegrantedpermissiontoappealtheseissuesoffirstimpression. ^       II.DEVELOPMENTOFTHELAWREGULATINGABORTIONS  z  -B  Tennesseehasregulatedthepracticeofabortionsbystatutesinceatleast1883,whenall F abortionswereillegalexcepttopreservethe lifeofthepregnantwoman.f  g 1883f  g ԀTenn.Pub. , Actsf  g ,ch.140(codifiedaf  g f  g sf  g ԀTenn.Codef  g f  g f  g 5371and5372f  g (f  g f  g 1884f  g )).Thisstatutewasleftlargely  unchangeduntilf  g afterf  g theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsf  Ԁg decisioninRoev.Wade.    InRoe,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtrecognizedthatawomanhasafundamental Z righttoterminateherpregnancyandthatthisrightisdeservingofheightenedscrutinyagainst @ staterestrictions.f  g 410U.S.at15455,93S.Ct.at72728.f  g ԀTheCourtfurtherrecognized, & however,thattheStatehaslegitimateinterestsinhealth,medicalstandards,andpotentiallife.f  g Ԁ  v Id.at16263,93S.Ct.at731.f  g ԀAccordingly,theCourtestablishedatrimesterframework \ pursuanttowhichtheStatesinterestsinmaternalhealthandpotentiallifearebalancedagainst B thewomansinterestinprocreationalautonomy.f  g ԀId.at16364,93S.Ct.at73132.f  g ԀConcluding ( thattheStatesinterestinmaternalhealthbecomescompellingafterthefirsttrimesterandthat  theStatesinterestinpotentiallifebecomescompellingafterthesecondtrimester,theUnited   StatesSupremeCourtstruckdownaTexascriminalabortionstatutewhich,likeTennessees p! statute,bannedallabortionsexcepttoprotectthewomanslife.Id.at164,93S.Ct.at732. V"    Afterf  g ԀtheRoev.Wadedecisionf  g f  g ,tf  g heGeneralAssemblyf  g f  g enactedf  g ԀPublicChapter235,1973 "$" Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.235(codifiedasTenn.CodeAnn.39-301(Supp.1973)),whichadopted %r# thetrimesterframeworksetforthinRoeandplacedrestrictionsupontheexerciseofthatright %X $ dependinguponthepointinthepregnancyduringwhichthewomanseeksanabortion,i.e.,the &>!% first,second,orthirdtrimester,anduponwhethersheisaresidentofTennessee.Inlateryears, '$"& thelegislatureenactedadditionalregulations.In1974,theGeneralAssemblyincreasedthe ( #' punishmentforstatutoryviolationsf  g f  g .f  g Ԁf  Ԁ1974Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.471(codifiedasg f  g Tenn.Code )#( Ann.39-301(1975))f  g .Then,in1978,theGeneralAssemblyprovidedforStatecustodyf  g f  g off  g Ԁa l*$) fetusf  g Ԁbornaliveduringanabortion,1978Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.811,2(codifiedasf  g f  g Tenn.Code R+%* Ann.39-307(Supp.1978))f  g ,andenactedthephysicianonly,informedconsentrequirements 8,&+ andthewaitingperiodrequirement.1978Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.847(codifiedasf  g f  g f  g f  g f  g Tenn.Code  Ann.39-302(Supp.1978))f  g .Thislatterprovisionf  g requiref  g df  g Ԁthe attendingphysiciantoorally | informthewomanofstatutorilyprescribedinformation,tobefollowedbyatwof  g f  g Ԅf  g daywaiting b period,beforethewomanmayreturntothephysician,signaconsentform,andobtainthe H abortion.Id.5    4      ׀Thelegislaturerecodifiedtheabortionstatutesf  g Ԁin1989asapartofageneralre .  enactmentofTennesseescriminalcode.f  g f  g See1989Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.591,1,Tenn.Code  ~ Annf  g .f  g Ԁ39-15-201through-f  g f  g 208(Supp.1989)f  g ;PlannedParenthoodAssnv.McWherter,817  d S.W.2d13,16(Tenn.1991).  J     f  g III.ANALYSIS     A.StandardofAppellateReview  ^      Thisappealinvolvesafacialchallengetotheconstitutionalityofastatute,andourreview *  isdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectnessgiventothelowercourtsjudgments.Statev. z  King,973S.W.2d586,588(Tenn.1998).However, therearecertainruleswhichthisCourt ` mustapplywhenconsideringafacialchallengetotheconstitutionalityofstatutes.Wemayonly F invalidateastatutewhenitcontraveneseitherthefederalorstateconstitution.SeeHollyv.City , ofElizabethton,193Tenn.46,53,241S.W.2d1001,100405(1951).Wearenotpermittedto  imposeourpolicyviewsortosecondguesstheGeneralAssemblyspolicyjudgments.SeeStein  v.DavidsonHotelCo.,945S.W.2d714,717(Tenn.1997).Indeed,  t 8  8`    [i]nconstruingstatutes,itisourdutytoadoptaconstructionwhich @ willsustainastatuteandavoidconstitutionalconflictifany & reasonableconstructionexiststhatsatisfiestherequirementsofthe  v Constitution.Statev.Sliger,846S.W.2d262,263(Tenn.1993); \ Statev.Lyons,802S.W.2d590,592(Tenn.1990);ShelbyCounty B ElectionCommnv.Turner,755S.W.2d774,777(Tenn.1988); ( Kirkv.State,126Tenn.7,10,150S.W.83,84(1911).When  facedwithachoicebetweentwoconstructions,oneofwhichwill   sustainthevalidityofthestatuteandavoidaconflictwiththe p! Constitution,and anotherwhichrendersthestatute V"  unconstitutional,wemustchoosetheformer.Id.<#!` x` x DavisKiddBooksellers,Inc.v.McWherter,866S.W.2d520,52930(Tenn.1993). %r#  %X $   Wehavecarefullyappliedtheseprinciplestoourreviewofthechallengedstatutes.      B.StandardofConstitutionalReview  H M`  TheinitialissuewhichthisCourtmustdecideiswhethertherightofprivacyimplicated  ~ inthiscaseasguaranteedbytheTennesseeConstitutionisbroaderthantherightasguaranteed  d bythefederalconstitutionandasconstruedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.Implicitinthis  J determinationiswhetherthestatutesatissuearetobejudgedunderthelessdemandingundue  0 burdenstandard,seeCasey,505U.S.at878,112S.Ct.at2821,orthemorestringentf  g Ԁstrict    scrutinystandardf  g f  g .SeeHawkv.Hawk,855S.W.2d573,577(Tenn.1993).PlannedParenthood   arguesthatthestaterighttoprocreationalautonomyisbroaderthanthefederalrightandthatthe x  appropriatestandardtoapplyisstrictscrutiny.TheState,ontheotherhand,assertsthatthe ^  CourtofAppealscorrectlyconcludedthattheappropriatestandardtoapplyundertheTennessee D  Constitutionisthe undueburdenstandardadoptedf  g ԀbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin *  Caseyf  .See505U.S.at874,112S.Ct.at2819( Onlywherethestateregulationimposesan z  undueburdenonawomansabilitytomakethisdecision[thedecisionofwhethertoundergoan ` abortion]doesthepoweroftheStatereachintotheheartofthelibertyprotectedbytheDue F ProcessClause). ,     1.UnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases  t  @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ dg  In1973,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtfirstrecognizedawomansrighttoterminate @ herpregnancyinRoev.Wade,410U.S.at153,93S.Ct.at727.Roeinvolvedachallengetoa & Texascriminalabortionstatutethatcriminalizedallabortionsexceptthosenecessarytopreserve  v thelifeofthemother.Inapluralityopinion,theCourtconcludedthattheconstitutionalrightof \ privacyencompasseda womansdecisionwhetherornottoterminateherpregnancy.Id.The B CourtalsorecognizedthattheStatehas importantinterestsinsafeguardinghealth,in ( maintainingmedicalstandards,andinprotectingpotentiallifeandthat [a]tsomepointin  pregnancy,theserespectiveinterestsbecomesufficientlycompellingtosustainregulation....   Id.at154,93S.Ct.at727.Accordingly,theCourtconcludedthatawomansrighttochoose p! abortionisnotabsoluteand mustbeconsideredagainstimportantstateinterestsinregulation. V"  Id. <#!   ReasoningthattheStatesinterestsbecomecompellingatcertainstagesofpregnancy, %r# theCourtestablishedatrimesterframeworkbywhichtoreviewstatesabortionregulationsin %X $ lightofthecompetinginterests.Id.at16364,93S.Ct.at73132.AccordingtotheCourt, &>!% medicalevidenceindicatesthatbeforetheendofthefirsttrimester,childbirthpresentsgreater '$"& riskstoawomanshealththandoesabortion.Id.at163,93S.Ct.at732.Thus,theCourt ( #' reasonedthattheStatesinterestinmaternalhealthbecomescompellingafterthefirsttrimester, )#( whentheStatemayregulateabortionpracticeinwaysreasonablyrelatedtoprotectingmaternal l*$) health.Id.TheCourtreasonedfurtherthatatviability,thefetusiscapableofsustaininglife R+%* independentofthemother.Id.Accordingly,theCourtheldthattheStatesinterestinpotential 8,&+ lifebecomescompelling atviability.Id.TheCourtheldthattheState maygosofarasto  proscribeabortionduringthatperiod,exceptwhenitisnecessarytopreservethelifeorhealthof | themother.Id.at16364,93S.Ct.at732.InRoe,atrimesterframeworkwasestablished b pursuanttowhichtheStatesinterestinmaternalhealthbecomescompellingattheendofthe H firsttrimester,andtheStatesinterestinpotentiallifebecomescompellingatthepointof .  viability.Id.at16364,93S.Ct.at73132.  ~   AfterRoe,manystates,includingTennessee,revisedtheircriminalabortionstatutesto  J accountforRoestrimesterframeworkandawomansconstitutionallyprotectedrighttochoose  0 abortion.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtdecidedseveralfederalconstitutionalchallengesto    thesenewlyenactedcriminalabortionstatutes.     TenyearsafterRoe,inAkronv.AkronCtr.forReprod.Health,462U.S.416,103S.Ct. ^  2481,76L.Ed.2d687(1983),overruledbyCasey,theCourtreaffirmedRoeandstruckdowna D  secondtrimesterhospitalizationrequirement,physicianonlyinformedconsentrequirements,a *  twentyfourhourwaitingperiodrequirement,aparentalconsentrequirement,andanordinance z  dealingwithfetalremains.Id.at452,103S.Ct.at2504.ThreemembersoftheCourt ` dissented,urgingthatthetrimesterframeworkofRoebediscardedandthattheCourtadoptthe F lessrestrictive undulyburdensomestandard.Seeid.at461,103S.Ct.at2509(OConnor,J. , joinedbyWhiteandRehnquist,JJ.,dissenting).    InWebsterv.ReproductiveHealthServ.,492U.S.490,109S.Ct.3040,106L.Ed.2d t 410(1989),theCourtconsideredtheconstitutionalityofthechallengedportionsofMissouris Z abortionstatutes,whichprovided:1)that,asapreamble,eachhumanslifebeginsatconception @ andthatthestateslawsshouldbeinterpretedtoaffordunbornchildren alltherights, & privileges,andimmunitiesavailabletootherpersons,citizens,andresidents;2)thatpublic  v facilitiesandemployeescannotbeusedforabortionservices;and3)thatphysiciansconduct \ viabilitytestspriortoperformingabortions.    5      ׀AmajorityoftheCourtrefusedtopassonthe B constitutionalityofthepreamblebutobservedthataStatehastheauthoritytomakeavalue ( judgmentfavoringchildbirthoverabortion,andthatthe preamblecanbereadsimplytoexpress  thatsortofvaluejudgment.Id.at506,109S.Ct.at3050.Themajorityalsoupheldthe   restrictionsontheuseofpublicfacilitiesandemployees.Id.at511,109S.Ct.at3053.The p! constitutionalityofviabilitytestingwassustainedinanopinionauthoredbyChiefJustice V"  Rehnquist.Id.at520,109S.Ct.at3058.JusticeBlackmun,joinedbyJusticesBrennanand <#! Marshalldissentedfromtheviewsofthemajority.Id.at539,109S.Ct.at3067(Blackmun,J., "$" concurringinpartanddissentinginpart).JusticeStevensdissentedinaseparateopinion.Id.at %r# 560,109S.Ct.at3079(Stevens,J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart).Thedissenting %X $ justices,however,concurredintheCourtsconclusionthattheaprovisionregardingpublic &>!% fundingwasmoot.Id.at540,109S.Ct.at3068,n.1andid.at560,109S.Ct.at3079. '$"&  ( #'   NineteenyearsafterdecidingRoe,theCourtmodifiedRoeinPlannedParenthoodv.  Casey.AmajorityoftheCourtreaffirmedRoesholdingthattheConstitutionprotectsa | womansrighttoterminateherpregnancybeforeviabilitywithoutundueinterferencefromthe b State.Casey,505U.S.at846,112S.Ct.at2804.Afterviability,thestatehasthepowerto H restrictabortions ifthelawcontainsexceptionsforpregnancieswhichendangerthewomans .  lifeorhealth.Id.  ~   Threejusticesconcludedthatthe undueburdenstandardistheappropriatemeansof  J reconcilingtheStatesinterestwiththewomansconstitutionallyprotectedliberty.Id.at876,  0 112S.Ct.at2820(jointopinionofOConnor,KennedyandSouter,JJ.).Accordingtothe    opinion, [a]findingofanundueburdenisashorthandfortheconclusionthatastateregulation   hasthepurposeoreffectofplacingasubstantialobstacleinthepathofawomanseekingan x  abortionofanonviablefetus.Id.at877,112S.Ct.at2820.TheCourtupheldinformed ^  consentrequirements,atwentyfourhourwaitingperiodrequirement,aparentalconsent D  requirement,amedicalemergencyexceptiontoprotectthemotherslifeandhealth,andmost *  recordkeepingandreportingrequirements.Id.at880,88687,899901,112S.Ct.at2822, z  2825,2826,283233.Itstruckdownaspousalnotificationrequirementandrelatedrecord ` keepingrequirements.Id.at898,901,112S.Ct.at2831,2833. F   Fourjustices,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart,criticizedtheundueburdentest.  Thejusticesnotedthattheundueburdenapproachhasnorecognizedbasisinconstitutionallaw.  Id.at964,112S.Ct.at2866(Rehnquist,C.J.,joinedbyWhite,Scalia,andThomas,JJ., t concurringinpartanddissentinginpart).Theyalsoobservedthattheapproach isnotbuiltto Z last.Id.at965,112S.Ct.at2866.Thetestisbased onajudgessubjectivedeterminations @ andwillallowjudgestomakedecisions guidedonlybytheirpersonalviews.Id.They & criticizedtheapproachasbeingno moreworkablethanthetrimesterframeworkitdiscards.  v Id.at966,112S.Ct.at2866. \   Mostrecently,inStenbergv.Carhart,򀀀U.S.򀀀,120S.Ct.2597,2617,147L.Ed2d ( 743(2000),amajorityoftheCourtreaffirmedthe undueburdenstandard.TheCourtstruck  downastatutebanningpartialbirthabortionsbecauseithadnoexceptionforthehealthofthe   motherandappliedtodilationandevacuationabortionsaswellastodilationandextraction p! abortions,therebyconstitutinganundueburdenonthewomansabilitytochooseanabortion. V"    AlthoughtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasnowreplacedthestrictscrutinystandard "$" intheabortioncontextwiththelessexactingundueburdenstandard,thisactiondoesnot %r# determinethestandardwhichthisCourtmustapplyundertheTennesseeConstitution.Wenow %X $ turntotheissueoftheappropriatestandardtoapplyunderourstateconstitution. &>!%   '$"&      2.TennesseeCases       Thoughwehaveneverbeforehadtheabortionissuesquarelybeforeus,wehave b consideredtherelatedissueofprocreationalautonomy.Davis,842S.W.2dat600.InDavis,we H firstrecognizedarighttoprivacyundertheTennesseeConstitution.Id.;seealsoHawk,855 .  S.W.2dat577.Davisinvolvedadivorcedisputeoverthedispositionofsevenfrozen  ~ preembryosthepartieshadcreatedduringtheirmarriage.Thehusbanddidnotwanttobecomea  d fatheroutsideofthemaritalrelationshipandthereforewantedthepreembryosdestroyed.The  J wifewantedtodonatethepreembryostoachildlesscouple.Ouranalysisofwhethertheparties  0 would becomeparentsturnedontheexerciseofthepartiesconstitutionalrighttoprivacy.      Afterobservingthattherighttoprivacyisnotspecificallymentionedineitherthefederal x  ortheTennesseeconstitutions,weinitiallyreviewedthedevelopmentofthefederalrightto ^  privacyforguidanceininterpretingourstateconstitution.Davis,842S.W.2dat59899.We D  notedthattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasrecognizedafederalconstitutionalrightof *  privacydespitetheabsenceofspecificlanguagementioningsucharightintheUnitedStates z  Constitution.Wereasonedthat,likewise,the righttoprivacy,orpersonalautonomy...,while ` notmentionedexplicitlyinourstateconstitution,isneverthelessreflectedinseveralsectionsof F theTennesseeDeclarationofRights....Id.at600.Wefurtherreasonedthatthedraftersof , theTennesseeConstitutionsurely foresawtheneedtoprotectindividualsfromunwarranted  governmentalintrusionintomatters...involvingintimatequestionsofpersonalandfamily  concern.Id.WethusconcludedthattheTennesseeConstitutionprotectstheindividualsright t toprivacyandexplainedthat: Z   u^` X` hp xx(# $%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#uthespecificindividualfreedomindisputeistherighttoprocreate. & IntermsoftheTennesseestateconstitution,weholdthattheright  v ofprocreationisavitalpartofanindividualsrighttoprivacy. \   ^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?A` Xx(# $%XId.(emphasisadded).Accordingly,weexplicitlyreliedontheTennesseeConstitutioninDavis ( toextendprotectiontothehusbandsrighttoprocreationalautonomy.    SincetheDavisdecision,wehaveidentifiedprivacyrightsinothercontexts.Wehave p! heldthataparentsrighttothecustodyofhisorherchildimplicatesafundamentalrightof V"  privacyandmaynotbeabridgedabsentacompellingstateinterest.SeeXXXXHawk,855S.W.2dat <#! 577;Nalev.Robertson,871S.W.2d674,680(Tenn.1994);Bondv.McKenzie(InreAdoption "$" ofFemaleChild),896S.W.2d546,54748(Tenn.1995);Petroskyv.Keene,898S.W.2d726, %r# 728(Tenn.1995);TennesseeBaptistChildrensHomes,Inc.v.Swanson(InreBrittany %X $ Swanson),2S.W.3d180,187(Tenn.1999).#XXXX熟#ԀTheCourtofAppealshasrelieduponDavistofind &>!% aprivacyinterestinconsensualadulthomosexuality.SeeCampbellv.Sundquist,926S.W.2d '$"&  250,266(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Thereisnoexhaustivelistofactivitiesthatfallunderthe ( #' protectionoftherighttoprivacy,ateitherthefederalorthestatelevel.    6      ׀However,itisclearthat   suchactivitiesmustbeoftheutmostpersonalandintimateconcern. |   Weobservethatexpresslylimitingthesubstantivescopeoftheinterestscomprisingthe H righttoprivacyservesnohelpfulpurpose,isindeedimpossible,andisbestlefttoconstitutional .  amendmentorinterpretationofindividualcases.Ourtaskhereistodeterminewhetherthe  ~ interestassertedinthiscaseconstitutesacognizableprivacyinterest.  d   Weholdthatawomansrighttoobtainalegalterminationofherpregnancyis  0 sufficientlysimilarincharactertothosepersonalandprivatedecisionsandactivitiesidentified    instateandfederalprecedenttoimplicateacognizableprivacyinterest.      x       3.ProtectionsAffordedtheRighttoPrivacy   =  Determiningwhetheranassertedinterestisfundamentalisessentialbecausefundamental b rightsreceivespecialprotectionunderbothfederalandstateconstitutions.Federalcaselaw H uniformlyholdsthegovernmentregulationoftheexerciseoffundamentalrightsis .  unconstitutionalunlesstheregulationsbothserveacompellinggovernmentalinterestandare  ~ narrowlytailoredtoservethatinterest.SeeSanAntonioIndep.Sch.Dist.v.Rodriguez,411  d U.S.1,29,93S.Ct.1278,1294,36L.Ed.2d16(1973).Tennesseecourtshaveadoptedthis  J  strictscrutinyapproachinregardtofundamentalrightswithoutexception.SeeStatev.Smoky  0 MountainSecrets,Inc.,937S.W.2d905,911(Tenn.1996).      Underfederallaw,privacyinterestsinvolvingmattersofmarriage,procreation,andchild x  rearinghavebeenheldtobe fundamentalinnature.Fundamentalrightshavebeendescribed ^  as thoselibertiesthataredeeplyrootedinthisNationshistoryandtradition.Bowersv. D  Hardwick,478U.S.186,192,106S.Ct.2841,2844,92L.Ed.2d140(1986)(quotingMoorev. *  CityofE.Cleveland,431U.S.at503,97S.Ct.at1938).Theyhavealsobeendescribedasthose z  rightsthatare implicitintheconceptoforderedliberty,suchthatneitherlibertynorjustice ` wouldexistif[they]weresacrificed.Bowers,478U.S.at19192,106S.Ct.at2844(quoting F Palkov.Connecticut,302U.S.319,32526,58S.Ct.149,152,82L.Ed.2d288(1937),overruled , byBentonv.Maryland,395U.S.784,89S.Ct.2056,23L.Ed.2d707(1969);accordRoe,410  U.S.at152,93S.Ct.at726.Additionally,fundamentalrightshavebeenfoundtobethoserights   explicitlyorimplicitlyguaranteedbytheConstitution.Rodriguez,411U.S.at33-34,93S.Ct. t at1297(contextofequalprotectionchallenge). Z   Nevertheless,inDavis,wefoundtherighttoprocreationalautonomytobe inherentin & ourmostbasicconceptsofliberty.Davis,842S.W.2dat601.Thattestwasessentiallya  v restatementofthefundamentalrightsapproachofRoe.Becauseawomansrighttoterminate \ herpregnancyandanindividualsrighttoprocreationalautonomyaresimilarinnature,wefind B theDavistesttobemostappropriatehere.    7      ׀Thus,awomansrighttoterminateherpregnancyis ( fundamentalifitcanbesaidtobeinherentintheconceptoforderedlibertyembodiedinthe  TennesseeConstitution.   &XXXX  #XXX&XQ# Thedissentcontendsthattherighttoterminateapregnancyasguaranteedbythe V"  TennesseeConstitutioniscoextensivewiththesimilarrightasguaranteedbytheUnitedStates <#! Constitution,andthisCourtshouldfollowthepronouncementoftheUnitedStatesSupreme "$" Courtastotheappropriatestandardonwhichtojudgeabortionregulations.SeeCasey,505U.S. %r# at876,112S.Ct.at2820.Thedissentsprimarycontentioninthisregardisthatthehistorical %X $ backgroundsofthefederaldueprocessclausesandthe LawoftheLandclauseinthe &>!% TennesseeConstitution(Tenn.Const.art.I,8)aresimilarandthatthetextualdifferencesof '$"& theclausesshouldbeaccordedlittleweight.Thedissentalsocontendsthathistoricallythe ( #' courtsofthisStatehaveconsistentlyviewedthe LawoftheLandclauseasprovidingco  extensiveprotectiontopersonallibertyasthatprovidedbythefederaldueprocessclauses. | &XXXX  Withoutquestion,theprotectionsaffordedTennesseecitizensbytheTennessee H ConstitutionsDeclarationofRightssharethecontoursoftheprotectionsaffordedbytheUnited .  StatesConstitutionsBillofRights.SeeDavis,842S.W.2dat600.Thisisdue,inlargepart,to  ~ affinityofpurpose.Bothdocumentswerewrittenwiththeintenttoreservetothepeoplevarious  d libertiesandtoprotectthefreeexerciseofthoselibertiesfromgovernmentalintrusion.  J   ItisalsodueinparttotheSupremacyClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitution,which    providesthatthefederalconstitutionistheultimate LawoftheLand.SeeU.S.Const.art.VI,   cl.2.ItessentiallymandatesthatnoTennesseelaw,whetherstatute,rule,orconstitution,may x  operatetodepriveaTennesseananyrightaffordedbythefederalconstitution.SeeMillerv. ^  State,584S.W.2d758,760(Tenn.1979). D    Therefore,Tennesseecourtsarerightfullyreluctanttofindgreaterprotectionfromthe z  textofthestateconstitutionwheretheprotectionsofthefederalconstitutionsuffice.Asaresult, ` moreinterpretivecaselawisgeneratedinregardtothefederalconstitution.SeeRichardS. F Wirtz,Foreward:InterpretingtheTennesseeConstitution,61Tenn.L.Rev.405,406(1994). , Therefore,analysisofcaselawinterpretingthefederalconstitutionisoftenafirststepin  interpretingprovisionsofourownconstitutionthataresimilarinwording,intent,orpurpose.    Itisequallywithoutquestion,however,thattheprovisionsofourTennesseeDeclaration Z ofRightsfromwhichtherighttoprivacyemanatesdifferfromthefederalBillofRightsin @ markedrespects.InDavis,wefoundthattherighttoprivacyguaranteedbytheTennessee & ConstitutionsprangfromtheexpressgrantsofrightsinArticleI,sections3,7,19,and27,and  v alsofromthegrantsoflibertyinArticleI,sections1,2,and8.SeeDavis,842S.W.2dat599 \ 600. B   TheseprotectionscontainedinourDeclarationofRightsaremoreparticularlystatedthan  thosestatedinthefederalBillofRights.Forexample,theexplicitguaranteeoffreedomof   worshipfoundundertheUnitedStatesConstitutionoccupiesbutsixteenwordsinanamendment p! generallyguaranteeingfreedomofworship,freedomofspeech,freedomofthepress,therightto V"  assemble,andtherighttopetitionthegovernmentforredressofgrievances.SeeU.S.Const. <#! amend.I. "$"   Incontrast,theguaranteeofworshipundertheTennesseeConstitutionexistsinitsown %X $ paragraphconstitutingeightyonewords.Itcharacterizesmankindsrighttoworshipas a &>!% naturalandindefeasiblerightanddeclares thatnohumanauthoritycan,inanycasewhatever, '$"& controlorinterferewiththerightsofconscience.Tenn.Const.artI,3.ThisCourthassaid ( #' thatthelanguageofthissection,whencomparedtotheguaranteeofreligiousfreedomcontained )#( inthefederalconstitution,isastrongerguaranteeofreligiousfreedom.SeeCardenv.Bland, l*$) 288S.W.2d718,721(Tenn.1956). R+%*  8,&+   Tennesseesguaranteesoffreespeechandfreepressaresimilarlymoredescriptivethan  thefederalgrant.Theverbalexpressionofthesebasicfreedomsinourconstitutionisinfused | withastrongsenseofindividualityandpersonalliberty: Thefreecommunicationofthoughts b andopinions,isoneoftheinvaluablerightsofman,andeverycitizenmayfreelyspeak,write, H andprintonanysubject,beingresponsiblefortheabuseofthatliberty.Tenn.Const.art.I, .  19.  ~   Whilethesedifferencesinlanguageandexpressionhaveyettogiverisetorecognitionof  J asubstantialdifferenceinprotectionofspeech,thisCourthasnotforeclosedthepossibilitythat  0 ourconstitutionmightoffergreaterprotectiontospeechincertaincontexts.See,e.g.,Davis    KiddBooksellers,866S.W.2dat525(notingfindingcoextensiveprotectioninobscenitycontext   doesnotmeanprovisionsare identicalforallpurposes);Leechv.AmericanBooksellers x  Assn,Inc.,582S.W.2d738,745(Tenn.1979)(holdingArt.I,19 shouldbeconstruedto ^  haveascopeatleastasbroadasthataffordedthosefreedomsbythefirstamendmentofthe D  UnitedStatesConstitution(emphasisadded)).ThatthisCourthasseenfittoleavethisdoor *  openspeaksofourrecognitionofapotentiallygreaterstateprotection. z    Someofourconstitutionalprotectionshavebeenfoundtobe identicaltoprovisionsof F theUnitedStatesConstitutioninsomerespects.Forexample,thisCourtheldinSneedv.State, , 423S.W.2d857(Tenn.1968)thattheTennesseeconstitutionalprohibitionagainstunreasonable  searchesandseizures isidenticalinintentandpurposetotheFourthAmendmentofthefederal  constitution.Id.at860. t   Identityinintentandpurpose,however,doesnotnecessarilycorrelatetocoextensive @ degreesofprotection.Infact,thisCourts decisionsapplyingthestateconstitutionhavebeen & somewhatmorerestrictivethancomparablefederalcasesinsomesearchandseizurecontexts.  v Statev.Lakin,588S.W.2d544,548(Tenn.1979)(findingTenn.Const.art.I,7offered \ greaterprotectionthanU.S.Const.amend.IVincontextof openfieldsdoctrine);see B alsoStatev.Doelman,620S.W.2d96,99(Tenn.Crim.App.1981)(noting theTennessee ( Constitutionissomewhatmoreprotectiveofprivatepropertyrights).    Thisdifferenceindegreeofprotectionaffordedbythestateandfederalconstitutionswas p! dueprimarilytoanexplicitdifferenceinwordingbetweenthetwoconstitutionalprovisions. V"  ArticleI,section7oftheTennesseeConstitutionprotects possessions,atermnotmentionedin <#! theFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.SeeLakin,588S.W.2dat549 "$" (construingprotectionof possessionstoincludeoccupied,fencedareas);seealsoWelchv. %r# State,154Tenn.60,64,289S.W.510,511(1926). %X $   Wedonotmeantosuggestaqualitativedifferenceinconstitutionalprovisionssimply '$"& becauseofamerequantitativedifferenceinwords.Nordowesuggestthatdifferentexpressions ( #' ofintentprecludethatintentbeingidentical.Cf.Delkv.State,590S.W.2d435,440(Tenn. )#( 1979)(stating, WedonotagreethattheTennesseeprohibitionagainstself-incriminationis l*$) broaderordifferentinanyapplicationthereofbecauseoftheuseofthewordevidenceinstead R+%* ofthewordwitness). 8,&+ Ї  Still,thisCourtisnotfreetodiscountthefactthattheframersofourstateconstitution  usedlanguagedifferentfromthatusedbytheframersoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.No | wordsinourconstitutioncanproperlybesaidtobesurplusage,seeWelch,154Tenn.at62,289 b S.W.at510( [T]hewordpossessionswasadded[toourConstitution]forapurpose.),and H differencesinexpressionsofrightareparticularlyrelevanttodeterminingthe conceptof .  libertyembodiedinourconstitution.  ~   Ourconstitutionalsocontainsspecificprovisionsnotfoundinthefederalconstitution,  J themostpertinentbeingArticle1,section2,condemningthedoctrineofnonresistence.This  0 provisionexemplifiesthestronganduniqueconceptoflibertyembodiedinourconstitutionin    thatit clearlyassert[s]therightofrevolution.OtisH.Stephens,Jr.,TheTennessee   ConstitutionandtheDynamicsofAmericanFederalism,61Tenn.L.Rev.707,710(1994).It x  provides: Thatgovernmentbeinginstitutedforthecommonbenefit,thedoctrineofnon ^  resistanceagainstarbitrarypowerandoppressionisabsurd,slavish,anddestructiveofthegood D  andhappinessofmankind.Tenn.Const.art.I,2.Inessence,thissectionrecognizesthatour *  governmentservesatthewillofthepeopleofTennessee,andexpresslyadvocatesactive z  resistenceagainstthegovernmentwhengovernmentnolongerfunctionstoservethepeoples ` needs.Thereisnobetterstatementofourconstitutionsconceptoflibertythanthisaudacious F empowermentofTennesseanstoforciblydissolvetheverygovernmentestablishedbutone , Articlelaterinourconstitution.    Thattheprotectionsaffordedbysomeoftheseexpressprovisions,includingthe Lawof t theLandclause,havebeenfoundtobe practicallysynonymouswiththeirfederal Z counterpartsisnotdispositiveoftheissueofwhetherthecollectiveconceptoflibertyembodied @ inourconstitutionisgreaterthantheconceptenvisionedbythefederalconstitution.Indeed,this & Courthasrecognizedthatpracticalsynonymitydoesnotnecessarilycorrespondtocoextensive  v expressionsofliberty,evenastoindividualexpressguaranteesundertheconstitution.For \ example,inCardenv.Bland,199Tenn.at672,288S.W.2dat721,weheldthatthefreedomof B worshipclausesintheTennesseeandfederalConstitutionsare practicallysynonymous.Still, ( inthatsamebreath,theCourtnoted, Ifanything,ourownorganiclawisbroaderandmore  comprehensiveinitsguaranteeoffreedomofworshipandfreedomofconscience....Id.     Today,weremainopposedtoanyassertionthatpreviousdecisionssuggestingthat V"  synonymityoridentityofportionsofourconstitutionandthefederalconstitutionrequiresthis <#! CourttointerpretourconstitutionascoextensivetotheUnitedStatesConstitution.    8      ׀ Tennessee "$" constitutionalstandardsarenotdestinedtowalkinlockstepwiththeuncertainandfluctuating %r# federalstandardsanddonotrelegateTennesseecitizenstothelowestlevelsofconstitutional %X $ protection,thoseguaranteedbythenationalconstitution.Statev.Black,815S.W.2d166,193  (Tenn.1991)(Reid,C.J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart).Wehavesaidtimeandagain | that: b 8  8`   [A]stoTennesseesConstitution,wesitasacourtoflastresort, .  subjectsolelytothequalificationthatwemaynotimpingeupon  ~ theminimumlevelofprotectionestablishedbySupremeCourt  d interpretationsofthefederalconstitutionalguarantees.Butstate  J supremecourts,interpretingstateconstitutionalprovisions,may  0 imposehigherstandardsandstrongerprotectionsthanthosesetby    thefederalconstitution.ItissettledlawthattheSupremeCourtof   astatehasfullandfinalpowertodeterminetheconstitutionalityof x  astatestatute,procedure,orcourseofconductwithregardtothe ^  stateconstitution,andthisistrueevenwherethestateandfederal D  constitutionscontainsimilaroridenticalprovisions.&RX&X* ` x` x #&XX&Rj#Millerv.State,584S.W.2dat760(emphasisadded).Wedonotintendtodivertfromthis ` principle. F   Theconceptoforderedlibertyembodiedinourconstitutionrequiresourfindingthata  womansrighttolegallyterminateherpregnancyisfundamental.Theprovisionsofthe  TennesseeConstitutionimplyprotectionofanindividualsrighttomakeinherentlypersonal t decisions,andtoactonthosedecisions,withoutgovernmentinterference.Awomans Z terminationofherpregnancyisjustsuchaninherentlyintimateandpersonalenterprise.This @ privacyinterestiscloselyalignedwithmattersofmarriage,childrearing,andotherprocreational & intereststhathavepreviouslybeenheldtobefundamental.Todistinguishitassomehownon  v fundamentalwouldrequirethisCourttoignoretheobviouscorollary. \   4.TheAppropriateStandard   #XXX&X2#  Itiswellsettledthatwhereafundamentalrightisatissue,inorderforastateregulation p! whichinterfereswiththatrighttobeupheld,theregulationmustwithstandstrictscrutiny.The V"  Statesinterestmustbesufficientlycompellinginordertoovercomethefundamentalnatureof <#! theright.SeeStatev.SmokyMountainSecrets,937S.W.2dat91011;Hawk855S.W.2dat "$" 579n.9(citingDavisforthepropositionthatthestatesinterestmustbesufficientlycompelling %r# toovercomeafundamentalright,Davis,842S.W.2dat602.).SeealsoValleyHosp.Assnv. %X $ MatSuCoalitionforChoice,948P.2d963,969(Alaska1997);AmericanAcademyof &>!% Pediatricsv.Lungren,66Cal.Rptr.2d210,231,16Cal.4th307,34041,940P.2d797,819 '$"& (1997)(pluralityopinion);WomenoftheStateofMinn.v.Gomez,542N.W.2d17,31(Minn. ( #' 1995);Floridav.PresidentialWomensCtr.,707So.2d1145,1149(Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1998)RXX.&RR#&XX&R$# )#(   #XXX&XE#XXXXOtherjurisdictionshaveappliedheightenedscrutinyofgovernmentalregulationof x+%* abortionsinceCaseywasdecided.OurrejectionoftheCaseystandard#XXXX#XXXXԀissimilartotheaction ^,&+ takenbythosestatecourts. InWomenoftheStateofMinn.v.Gomez,theMinnesotaSupreme  Courtconsideredacomplaintfordeclaratoryandinjunctivereliefchallengingthe | constitutionalityofstatutesrestrictingtheuseofpublicmedicalassistanceandgeneralassistance b fundsforabortions.TheCourtdeterminedthattheMinnesotaConstitutionguaranteedarightof H privacyrootedinseveralprovisionsoftheconstitution,includingadueprocessprovision,a law .  ofthelandprovision,andaprovisionprotectingagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizures.  ~ Gomez,542N.W.2dat27n.10.TheCourtheldthattherightofprivacyincludesawomans  d righttochoosetohaveanabortion.Id.at27.Statingthatitcouldthinkoffewdecisionsmore  J intimate,personal,andprofoundthanawomansdecisionbetweenchildbirthandabortion,it  0 heldthatthecasewasoneofthoselimitedcircumstancesinwhichitwouldinterpretthe    MinnesotaConstitutiontoprovidemoreprotectionthanthataffordedunderthefederal   constitution.Id.at27,30.Itsubjectedtheregulationstostrictscrutinybecausetherightof x  privacyisfundamental.Id.at31.SeealsoPlannedParenthoodLeagueofMassachusetts,Inc.v. ^  AttorneyGeneral,424Mass.586,590,677N.E.2d101,104(1997)(holdingthatthestate D  constitutionDeclarationofRightsaffordedgreaterdegreeofprotectiontotherightassertedthan *  didthefederalconstitutionasinterpretedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt). z    Theapplicationofthestrictscrutinyapproachisentirelyconsistentwithour F jurisprudenceconsideringlawswhichimposeuponorrestrictfundamentalrights.Whilethe , jointopinioninCaseyadoptedthe undueburdenapproach,JusticeScaliainaseparatedissent  andconcurrencecriticizedthesocalledstandardasbeing ultimatelystandardless.505U.S.at  987,112S.Ct.at2878(Scalia,J.dissentingandconcurring).Henotedthattheundueburden t standardwas createdlargelyoutofwholeclothandessentiallyhadnorecognizedbasisin Z constitutionallaw.Id.(referringtoRehnquist,C.J.concurringanddissenting,Id.at964,112S. @ Ct.at2866.) &   Weagreethattheundueburdenapproachisessentiallynostandardatall,and,ineffect, \ allowsjudgestoimposetheirownsubjectiveviewsoftheproprietyofthelegislationin B question.Thedissenthascriticizedthemajorityfor convert[ing]itselfintoaroving ( constitutionalconventionwhichisfreetostrikedownthedulyenactedlawsofthelegislaturefor  nootherreasonthantheCourtfeelstheyareburdensomeandunwise.Infact,thatisexactly   whattheundueburdenapproachallows.Underthattest,theCourtisfreetodetermine,under p! thejusticesownsubjectiveopinionsastothewisdomofthelegislation,whetherthelegislation V"  createsanundueburdenuponawomansrighttoterminateherpregnancy.Applicationofstrict <#! scrutiny,arecognizedprincipleofconstitutionallaw,ontheotherhand,requirestheCourtto "$" applyastandardthathasbeenappliedrepeatedlyovertheyears,andtheCourtmaydrawupon %r# thatprecedentindeterminingwhetherthelegislationpassesmuster. %X $   Thesubjectivenatureoftheundueburdenanalysisisaptlyillustratedbythefactthatthe '$"& majorityandthedissentreachdiametricallyopposedresultswhenapplyingtheanalysis.The ( #'  majoritywouldfindeachofthechallengedabortionstatutestobeunconstitutionalunderCasey, )#( whilethedissent,applyingexactly#XXXX#XXXXthesameanalysis,wouldreachtheoppositeresultastoeach  statute,saveone.8    9       |    Theundueburdentestrequiresajudgetoconsideronlytheeffectofthegovernmental H regulation.Itfails,however,toofferanobjectivestandardbywhichtheeffectshouldbejudged. .  Accordingly,aregulationheldtobeanundueburdenbyonejudgecouldjustaseasilybefound  ~ tobereasonablebyanotherjudgebecausethegaugeforwhatisanundueburdennecessarily  d variesfrompersontoperson.  J   Thus,theCaseytestoffersourjudgesnorealguidanceandengendersnoexpectation    amongthecitizenrythatgovernmentalregulationofabortionwillbeobjective,evenhanded,or   wellreasoned.ThisCourtfindsnojustificationforexchangingthelongestablished x  constitutionaldoctrineofstrictscrutinyforatest,notyettenyearsoldandapplicabletoasingle, ^  narrowareaofthelaw,thatwouldrelegateafundamentalrightofthecitizensofTennesseeto D  thepersonalcapriceofanindividualjudge. *    Itmaybeappropriateinsomeareasofourlawtoprovidejudgesindividual,and ` necessarilysubjective,discretion.Subjectivejudicialopinionhasnoplace,however,in F determiningtheconstitutionalityoftheexerciseoffundamentalrights.Accordingly,we , concludethatstrictscrutinyistheappropriatestandardtoapplyinthiscase.     5.ApplicationofStrictScrutiny  Z #XXXX #  ThenextcriticalinquiryinourreviewisthenatureoftheStatesinterestsandwheneach & oftherespectiveinterestsbecomescompelling.Inourview,theStatehasaninterestin  v promotingthehealthandsafetyofallitscitizens,andtheStateclearlyhasacompellinginterest \ inmaternalhealthfromthebeginningofpregnancy.Tenn.Const.art.I,1(statingthatthe B governmentis institutedfor[the]peace,safetyandhappinessofitscitizens);butseeRoe,410 ( U.S.at163,93S.Ct.at731( WithrespecttotheStatesimportantandlegitimateinterestinthe  healthofthemother,thecompellingpoint,inthelightofpresentmedicalknowledge,isat   approximatelytheendofthefirsttrimester.). p!   InDavis,wediscussedtheStatesinterestinpotentiallife.There,wewereconcerned <#! withtheStatesinterestinthepotentiallifeofthefourtoeightcellpreembryos,andwe "$" ultimatelyconcludedthattheStatesinterestinpotentiallifewasinsufficienttopermitan %r# infringementonthepartiesprocreationalautonomy.Davis,842S.W.2dat602.Wereviewed %X $ ourstatestatuteswhichdealwithpotentialhumanlifeandnotedthatTenn.CodeAnn.  20-5-106(b)(1980)allowedacivilactionforwrongfuldeathofaviablefetus.Davis,842 | S.W.2dat602n.26(emphasisadded).WefurthernotedthatpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn. b 39-13-107and-214(1991),apersoncannotcommitacriminaloffenseagainstafetusunless H thefetusisviable.Id.󀀀Finally,wereviewedthetrimesterframeworkofourcriminalabortion .  statutes.Wereasonedthat:  ~    x^` X` hp xx(# $%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#Xx ` Takencollectively,ourstatutesreflectthepolicydecisionthat,at  J leastinsomecircumstances,theinterestoflivingindividualsin  0 avoidingprocreationissufficienttojustifytakingstepsto    terminatetheprocreationalprocess,despitethestatesinterestin   potentiallife. x     ^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?A` Xx(# $%XId.WethusconcludedthattheStatesinterestinthefourtoeightcellpreembryoswas atbest D  slightandindicatedthatviabilitymarksacriticaldevelopmentalpointinawomanspregnancy. *  Id.at602,602n.26. z    WefurthernotedinDavisthatthe abortionstatuterevealsthattheincreaseinthestates F interestismarkedbyeachsuccessivedevelopmentalstage....Id.at602.Itfollowsthatas , thepregnancyprogresses,theStatesinterestinpotentiallifegraduallyincreasesandgradually  comesintoconflictwiththewomansinterestinprocreationalautonomy.Inourview,therefore,  itisclearthatatsomedevelopmentalpointinthewomanspregnancy,theStatesinterestin t potentiallifebecomescompelling,andthewomansinterestinprocreationalautonomymust Z yieldtotheStatesinterest.Seeid.at602n.26;Tenn.CodeAnn.20-5-106(c)(Supp.1999); @ Tenn.CodeAnn.39-13-107and-214(1997).Accordingly,weholdthattheStatesinterest & inpotentiallifebecomescompellingatviability.Bearingtheseconstitutionalstandardsinmind,  v wenowconsiderthechallengedprovisions. \     C.AnalysisofTennesseesCriminalAbortionStatutes    1.Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-201  p!     TheTennesseestatuteinitiallyprovidesthatabortionsarelawfulwithinthefirstthree <#! monthsofpregnancyifperformedwiththewomansconsentandinaccordancewiththemedical "$" judgmentofherattendingphysician. TennesseeCodeAnn.39-15-201(c)(2)furtherprovides %r# that [n]opersonisguiltyofacriminalabortion...whenanabortion...isperformedunderthe %X $ followingcircumstances: &>!%   .... '$"&   x^` X` hp xx(# $%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#XxAfterthree(3)months,butbeforeviabilityofthefetus,ifthe ( #' abortionorattempttoprocureamiscarriageisperformedwiththe )#( pregnantwomansconsentandinahospital.... l*$)   ^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?A` Xx(# $%X R+%* Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-201(c)(2).Thereisnostatutoryprovisionforamedicalemergency   exceptiontothesecondtrimesterhospitalizationrequirement.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. | 39-15-201through209. b   Thetrialcourtconstruedtheterm hospitaltoinclude ambulatorysurgicalcenters, .  bringingthestatuteintoconformitywiththestandardsoftheAmericanCollegeofObstetricians  ~ andGynecologists,andupheldthesecondtrimesterhospitalizationrequirement.TheCourtof  d Appealsappliedtheundueburdenstandardandconcludedthattherewasnoevidenceof  J improperlegislativemotivenorevidencethatthesecondtrimesterhospitalizationrequirement  0 createdasubstantialobstaclepreventingwomenfromobtainingabortions.      Underthestrictscrutinystandard,itistheStatesburdentoshowthattheregulationis x  justifiedbyacompellingstateinterestandnarrowlytailoredtoachievethatinterest.E.g., ^  SmokyMountainSecrets,937S.W.2dat912;Hawk,855S.W.2dat579n.9.TheStateconcedes D  thatthehospitalizationrequirementincreasesthecostofabortions.TheState,however,points *  toevidenceintherecordthatsecondtrimesterabortionscanresultincomplicationsandargues z  thatsuchcomplicationsrequireahospitalsettingforapropermedicalresponse.TheState ` presentedtestimonythatPlannedParenthoodsfacilitieslacknecessaryinstruments,equipment, F andsuppliestoperformabortionsafterthethirdmonthofpregnancy.Inlightofthisevidence, , theStatearguesthatthesecondtrimesterhospitalizationrequirementisnecessarytoprotect  maternalhealth.PlannedParenthoodpointstoevidencethatsecondtrimesterabortionsaresafe  outsidethehospitalsettinguptoeighteenweeksofpregnancyandthatthehospitalization t requirementonlyservestoincreasethecostofsecondtrimesterabortionswithoutincreasing Z theirsafety.TheStateinsists,however,thatfreestandingoutpatientclinicsandambulatory @ treatmentcenterslikethoserunbytheplaintiffslackadequatefacilitiesinwhichtoperform & secondtrimesterabortions.  v   AlthoughtheStatehasacompellinginterestinmaternalhealthfromthebeginningof B pregnancy,Tenn.Const.art.I,1,thesecondtrimesterhospitalizationrequirementisnot ( narrowlytailoredtofurtherthatstateinterest.Substantialevidencewasintroducedattrialto  indicatethatabortionscanbeperformedsafelyoutsidethehospitalsettingthroughatleastthe   firsteighteenweeksofpregnancy.AmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologists, p! StandardsforObstetricGynecologicServices(7thed.1989).AsobservedbytheCourtof V"  Appeals,ageneralagreementexistswithinthemedicalcommunitythatabortionscanbe <#! performedsafelyinphysiciansofficesandoutpatientclinicsthroughthefourteenthweekof "$" pregnancyand,further,thatphysiciansagreethatabortionsthroughtheeighteenthweekof %r# pregnancymaybeperformedsafelyinfreestandingsurgicalfacilities.Asnotedbythetrial %X $ court,theevidenceisclearthatsecondtrimesterabortionsareperformedintheNashville &>!% communityin ambulatorysurgicalcenters,whichhaveresultedfromadvancedmedical '$"& technologyandcare,andarealsotheproductofanattempttolowercoststopatients. ( #'   TheStatemay,ofcourse,adoptstandardsforlicensingfacilitieswheresecondtrimester l*$) abortionsmaybeperformedsuchasrequiringfacilitiestobeproperlyequippedandstaffed. R+%* See,e.g.,AmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologists,StandardsforObstetric 8,&+ GynecologicServices(settingforthsuggestedqualificationstandards).However,theStatemay  notsimplyprohibitallsecondtrimesterabortionsthatarenotperformedinahospital.Sucha | regulationisnotnarrowlytailoredtopromotematernalhealth. b   Moreover,inlightofthecompleteabsenceofamedicalemergencyexceptiontothe .  hospitalizationrequirement,theprovisionisconstitutionallyinfirmevenunderthefederalundue  ~ burdenstandard. Casey,505U.S.at879,112S.Ct.at2821( [T]hestate...may,ifitchooses,  d regulate,andevenproscribe,abortionexceptwhereitisnecessary,inappropriatemedical  J judgment,forthepreservationofthelifeorhealthofthemother.(quotingRoe,410U.S.at  0 16465,93S.Ct.at732)(emphasisadded)).Accordingly,weconcludethatthesecondtrimester    hospitalizationrequirement place[s]asubstantialobstacleinthepathofawomanseekingan   abortion.Id.at878,112S.Ct.at2821. x      2.Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202  *  $@  Wenowturntoconsiderthestatutoryprovisionsthatsetouttheinformedconsent ` requirements,thetwodaywaitingperiodrequirement,andthemedicalemergencyexceptionsto F eachoftheserequirements.Becauseeachoftheseprovisionsareinterrelated,andthelower , courtsconsideredthecombinedeffectofthesesubsections,wetoowillconsiderthemtogether.      TheinformedconsentrequirementsarecodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202(b)(c). t Subsection202(b)states: Z   x^` X` hp xx(# $%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#Xx (b)Inordertoensurethataconsentforanabortionistruly & informedconsent,anabortionshallbeperformedorinducedupon  v apregnantwomanonlyaftershehasbeenorallyinformedbyher \ attendingphysicianofthefollowingfactsandhassignedaconsent B formacknowledgingthatshehasbeeninformedasfollows: (  (1)Thataccordingtothebestjudgmentofherattending   physiciansheispregnant; p!  (2)Thenumberofweekselapsedfromtheprobabletimeof <#! theconceptionofherunbornchild,basedupontheinformation "$" providedbyherastothetimeofherlastmenstrualperiodorafter %r# ahistory,physicalexamination,andappropriatelaboratorytests; %X $  (3)Thatifmorethantwentyfour(24)weekshaveelapsed '$"& fromthetimeofconception,herchildmaybeviable,thatis, ( #' capableofsurvivingoutsideofthewomb,andthatifsuchchildis )#( prematurelybornaliveinthecourseofanabortionherattending l*$) physicianhasalegalobligationtotakestepstopreservethelife R+%* andhealthofthechild. 8,&+ Ї ...   (5)Thatnumerouspublicandprivateagenciesandservices b areavailabletoassistherduringherpregnancyandafterthebirth H ofherchild,ifshechoosesnottohavetheabortion,whethershe .  wishestokeepherchildorplacethechildforadoption,andthat  ~ herphysicianwillprovideherwithalistofsuchagenciesandthe  d servicesavailableifshesorequests;or  J  (6)Numerousbenefitsandrisksareattendanteitherto    continuedpregnancyandchildbirthortoabortiondependingupon   thecircumstancesinwhichthepatientmightfindherself.The x  physicianshallexplainthesebenefitsandriskstothebestofsuch ^  physiciansabilityandknowledgeofthecircumstancesinvolved. D    ^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?A` Xx(# $%X   x^X` h x (# $%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#Xx  Subsection202(c)states: `  F    ^` X` hp xx(# $%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXX $%XAtthesametimetheattendingphysicianprovidestheinformation , requiredbysubsection(b),suchphysicianshallinformthe  pregnantwomanoftheparticularrisksassociatedwithher  pregnancyandchildbirthandtheabortionorchilddelivery t techniquetobeemployed,includingprovidingherwithatleasta Z generaldescriptionofthemedicalinstructionstobefollowed @ subsequenttotheabortionorchildbirthinordertoensurehersafe & recovery.  v   ^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?A` Xx(# $%XId.202(b)(c).    10      ׀TheseprovisionsapplytoanyabortionsoughtinTennessee,regardlessofthe ( trimesterinwhichitissought.  x^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#Xx  ThetwodaywaitingperiodrequirementiscodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn. p! 39-15-202(d)(1).Thissubsectionstates: V"    x^` X` hp xx(# $%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#XxThereshallbeatwodaywaitingperiodafterthephysician "$" providestherequiredinformation,excludingthedayonwhich %r# suchinformationwasgiven.Onthethirddayfollowingtheday %X $ suchinformationwasgiven,thepatientmayreturntothe &>!% physicianandsignaconsentform. '$"&   ^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?A` Xx(# $%X ( #' Id.202(d)(1).Thus,afterthewomanreceivesthemandatedinformation,shemustwaittwo  additionaldaysbeforeshe mayreturntothephysician,signaconsentform,andobtainthe | abortion. `     b   Finally,theemergencymedicalexceptionstoboththesesectionsarecodifiedatTenn. .  CodeAnn.39-15-202(d)(3),(g).Subsection202(d)(3)providesthemedicalemergency  ~ exceptiontothetwodaywaitingperiodrequirementandstates:  d   x^` X` hp xx(# $%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#XxThissubsectionshallnotapplywhentheattendingphysician,  0 utilizingexperience,judgmentorprofessionalcompetence,    determinesthatatwodaywaitingperiodoranywaitingperiod   wouldendangerthelifeofthepregnantwomen....This x  provisionshallnotrelievetheattendingphysicianofhisdutyto ^  thepregnantwomantoinformherofthefactsundersubsection D  (b). *    ^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?A` Xx(# $%XId.202(d)(3)(emphasisadded).Subsection202(g)containsthemedicalemergencyexceptions ` toallrequirementsofTenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202andstates: F   x^` X` hp xx(# $%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#XxTheprovisionsofthissectionshallnotapplyinthosesituations  whereanabortioniscertifiedbyalicensedphysicianasnecessary  topreservethelifeofthepregnantwoman. t   ^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?A` Xx(# $%XId.202(g)(emphasisadded).Thesearetheonlymedicalemergencyexceptionstothe @ challengedstatutoryprovisionsbeforethisCourt.   &   Thetrialcourtfoundthattheattendingphysicianneednotpersonallyinformthepregnant  \  womanoftherequiredinformation,butmustverifythatsuchcounselinghastakenplaceand B confirmthatthepatientis actuallysuppliedadequateinformationtoenablehertomakean ( autonomousdecision.Thetrialcourt,however,struckthewaitingperiodrequirement.Finally,  astothemedicalemergencyexceptions,thetrialcourtinterpretedtheword lifetomean life   andhealthandupheldtheexceptions. p!   AlthoughtheCourtofAppealsgenerallyaffirmedthetrialcourtwithregardtothe <#! informedconsentprovisions,theappellatecourtdisagreedwiththetrialcourtsconclusionthat "$" thewaitingperiodcreatedanundueburden.Theintermediate courtexpressedconcernthatits %r# researchhadfailedtorevealasinglecaseupholdingawaitingperiodlongerthantwentyfour %X $ hours,butthecourtdeclinedtostrikethestatutebasedsolelyonthelengthofthewaitingperiod. &>!% TheCourtofAppealsdidconclude,however,thatunderthefactsofthiscase,thecombined '$"& effectofthephysicianonlycounselingrequirementandthemandatorytwodaywaitingperiod ( #' undulyburdensawomansexerciseofherprocreationalrights.Thecourtdisagreedwiththe )#( trialcourtsanalysisconcerningtheattendingphysicianrequirement,statingthatpursuanttothe l*$) plainlanguageofthestatute,aphysicianmaynotdelegatehisorherinformedconsent R+%* obligationstoanyotherperson.Finally,thecourtdisagreedwiththetrialcourtsconstructionof 8,&+ themedicalemergencyexceptioncontainedinTenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202(g),reasoningthat  pursuanttotheplainmeaningof202(g),aphysicianmaybypasstherequirementsofTenn. | CodeAnn.39-15-202onlywhen necessarytopreservethelifeofthepregnantwoman, b regardlessofherhealth.Accordingly,theappellatecourtheldthemedicalemergency H exceptionstobeunconstitutionalunderCasey. .    ItistheStatesburdentoshowthattheregulationisjustifiedbyacompellingstate  d interest.E.g.,SmokyMountainSecrets,937S.W.2dat912;Hawk,855S.W.2dat579n.9.The  J State,however,haschosentoprimarilyarguethattheCourtofAppealswascorrectinreviewing  0 thechallengedprovisionsundertheundueburdenstandardannouncedinCasey.Planned    Parenthood,ontheotherhand,arguesthatnoneoftheseprovisionsarenarrowlytailoredto   furthercompellingstateinterests. x      a.  InformedConsentandPhysicianOnlyCounselingRequirements  *      PlannedParenthoodchallengedthestatutoryrequirementthatbeforeawomanconsents ` toanabortion,herattendingphysicianmustorallyinformherofcertaininformationaboutthe F procedureandheroptions.Tenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202(b)and(c).Thelegislaturehasspoken , ontheissueofinformedconsentinanothercontext.Tenn.CodeAnn.29-26-118.Thissection  appliestoallotheractionsinvolvingtheissueofinformedconsentexceptforabortion.Section  29-26-118,captioned Provinginadequacyofconsent,providesthataplaintifftoamalpractice t actionproveslackofinformedconsentbypresentingevidencethatthephysician didnotsupply Z appropriateinformationtothepatientinobtaininghisinformedconsent...inaccordancewith @ therecognizedstandardofacceptableprofessionalpracticeintheprofessionandinthe & speciality,ifany...Id.Thelegislaturehasprovidedforacauseofactionbasedonthelackof  v informedconsentandhasrecognizedthatinformedconsentisintendedtobenefitthepatient, \ i.e.,thepregnantwoman.Accord,e.g.,Bryantv.HCAHealthServicesofTennessee,Inc.,15 B S.W.3d804,80910(Tenn.2000). (   Althoughitisimportantthatawomancontemplatingabortionbeinformed in   accordancewiththerecognizedstandardofacceptableprofessionalpractice,thephysicianonly p! counselingrequirementisnotnarrowlytailoredtoaccomplishthisrequirement.TheState V"  arguesthatmedicalethicsrequiretheattendingphysiciantoimparttherequiredinformationto <#! thewoman.TheStatesuggeststhatnothinginthestatutepreventstheattendingphysicianfrom "$" informingthewomanoftherequiredinformationoverthetelephone,therebyreducingany %r# burdenwhichcouldresultfromthecombinedeffectofthephysicianonlycounseling %X $ requirementandthetwodaywaitingperiodrequirement.Inourview,however,this &>!% interpretationdisregardstheplainlanguagecontainedinTenn.CodeAnn.39-15-202(d)(1)that '$"& awoman mayreturntothephysiciansofficefollowingthetwodaywaitingperiod.In ( #' requiringthatawomanwaittwodaysbeforeshe mayreturntoherphysician,id.,the )#( legislatureclearlyintendedthatthewomanmaketwotripstothephysicianinordertofulfillthe l*$) informedconsentrequirements. R+%*  8,&+   Inanyevent,theStatemaintainsthattheseprovisionsareconstitutionallysound,  pointingtoevidenceintherecordthatPlannedParenthoodhasbeenprovidingsimilar | informationtoitspatients.MedicalexpertsforPlannedParenthoodtestifiedthatmostwomen b havealreadymadeuptheirmindsbeforegoingtotheabortionprovider,andforthosewhoseem H uncertainuponarrival,thatdoctorseitherdiscussthematterfurtherorwillnotperformthe .  abortion.Moreover,evidenceindicatesthatitisstandardthroughoutthemedicalcommunityfor  ~ healthcareprofessionalsotherthantheattendingphysiciantoprovideneededcounselingand  d thattheattendingphysiciansroleshouldbetoensurethatthepatienthasreceivedappropriate  J information.SeealsoAkron,462U.S.at448,103S.Ct.at2502( TheStatesinterestisin  0 ensuringthatthewomansconsentisinformedandunpressured;thecriticalfactoriswhethershe    obtainsthenecessaryinformationandcounselingfromaqualifiedperson,nottheidentityofthe   personfromwhomsheobtainsit.).Becauseitisnotnecessarythatthephysicianpersonally x  imparttherequiredinformationtothewomaninorderforinformedconsenttooccur,the ^  physicianonlycounselingrequirementisnotnarrowlytailoredtofurtheracompellingstate D  interestandwillnotbeupheld. *    Welikewiseconcludethatthephysicianonlycounselingrequirementcannotbeupheld, ` evenunderthelessexactingundueburdenanalysis.Becausetheinformationmaybeprovided F tothewomancontemplatingabortionbyanotherhealthcareprofessionalandthesameresultbe , achieved,wecanonlyconcludethatthepurposeoreffectofthephysicianonlyrequirementisto   placeasubstantialobstacleinthepathofawomanseekinganabortion.Casey,505U.S.at  878,112S.Ct.at2821. t   Ouranalysisofthephysicianonlycounselingrequirement,aswellasthelowercourts @ conclusionandtheStatesconcessionthat39-15-202(b)(4)( [t]hatabortioninaconsiderable & numberofcasesconstitutesamajorsurgicalprocedure)isunconstitutional,pretermitsour  v discussionofeachoftheinformedconsentprovisionsindividually.Wedeclinetosimplyelide \ thoseportionsofsubsections(b)and(c)relatingtothespecificinformationthewomanistobe B told.SeeStateexrel.Barkerv.Harmon,882S.W.2d352,353(Tenn.1994).InHarmon,we ( explainedthat [t]hedoctrineofelisionallowsacourt,underappropriatecircumstanceswhen  consistentwiththeexpressedlegislativeintent,toelideanunconstitutionalportionofastatute   andfindtheremainingprovisionstobeconstitutionalandeffective.Id.at355.Eventhough p! theGeneralAssemblyincludedaseverabilityclausewhenthestatuteswererecodifiedin1989, V"  1989Tenn.Pub.Acts,ch.591,120,theStatesargumentshavenotonlystressedthe <#! importanceofhavingthephysicianpersonallyinformthewomanbuthavefurtherinsistedthat "$" medicalethicsrequirethephysiciantoinformthewoman.Accordingly,weconcludethatthe %r# legislaturewouldnothaveenactedtheinformedconsentprovisionsinabsenceofthephysician %X $ onlycounselingrequirement,andthatconsequently,thedoctrineofelisioncannotapplytosave &>!% theremaininginformedconsentprovisions.    11       '$"& x^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#Xx    b.  MandatoryWaitingPeriodRequirement  |     WefurtherconcludethatthetwodaywaitingperiodrequirementcontainedinTenn. H CodeAnn.39-15-202(d)(1)failstopassconstitutionalmuster.TheStateappearstoarguethat .  thewaitingperiodrequirementfurthersitsinterestinpotentiallifeandexplicitlyarguesthatthis  ~ provisionprotectsmaternalhealthbyensuringthatthewomanhasadequatetimetoreflecton  d herdecisionafterhearingthestatutorilyprescribedinformation.TheStatehasnotarguedthat  J thewaitingperiodprovisionisnarrowlytailoredtofurtheracompellingstateinterest,but  0 insteadpointstoevidencethatwhilethewaitingperiodwasineffect,theDistrictCourtforthe    WesternDistrictofTennesseemadeafindingoffactthatover3,000abortionswereperformed   duringtheyearprecedingthehearinginthecase,seePlannedParenthoodofMemphisv. x  Alexander,No.78-2310(W.D.Tenn.March23,1981),p.7,andthat,consequently,this ^  requirementdoesnotcreateanundueburden.    12       D    InAkron,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtstruckdownatwentyfourhourwaiting z  period,reasoningthat carefulconsiderationoftheabortiondecisionbythewomanisbeyond ` thestatespowertorequire.462U.S.at450,103S.Ct.at2503(citationomitted).TheCourt F characterizedthetwentyfourhourwaitingperiodas arbitraryandinflexibleandreasonedthat , thecityhadfailedtoshowthattherequirementincreasedthesafetyofabortionorotherwise  furtheredalegitimatestateinterest.Id.TheCourtconcluded:    x^` X` hp xx(# $%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#XxThedecisionwhethertoproceedwithanabortionisoneasto Z whichitisimportantto affor[d]thephysicianadequatediscretion @ intheexerciseofhismedicaljudgment.Inaccordancewiththe & ethicalstandardsoftheprofession,aphysicianwilladvisethe  v patienttodefertheabortionwhenhethinksthiswillbebeneficial \ toher.Butifawoman,afterappropriatecounseling,ispreparedto B giveherwritteninformedconsentandproceedwiththeabortion,a ( Statemaynotdemandthatshedelaytheeffectuationofthat  decision.     ^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?A` Xx(# $%XId.at45051,103S.Ct.at2503 (emphasisadded)(citationomitted)(footnoteomitted). V"  AlthoughlatertheauthorsoftheCaseyopiniondeterminedthata24hourwaitingperioddidnot <#! violatethe undueburdenstandard,505U.S.at887,112S.Ct.at2826,thereasoningofthe "$" SupremeCourtinAkronisequallyapplicabletothechallengemadehereundertheTennessee  Constitution.Asthetrialcourtstated, |   x^` X` hp xx(# $%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AX(#Xxawomancontemplatinganabortionshouldbeallowed sufficient H timeforreflectionbeforeshemakesaninformeddecision. .  However,a sufficientamountoftimevarieswitheachindividual  ~ woman,andtheinflexibilityofatwodaywaitingperiodasit  d appliestoeverywomanexceptinamedicalemergencysituation  J requiresitsinvalidation.Themajorityoftheexperttestimony  0 seemedtoacquiesceinthefactthatmostwomenhaveseriously    contemplatedtheirdecisionbeforemakingtheirappointment...;   severalofthewitnessestestifiedthatmanyofthepatientsat x  PlannedParenthoodwerereferredbyotherprivatephysicians, ^  indicatingthatthewomanalreadyhasattheveryleastabasic D  understandingofhersituationandthedecisionsnowbeforeher. *  Tomandatethatshewaitevenlongerinsultstheintelligenceand z  decisionmakingcapabilitiesofawoman.... `   ^X` hp x (#(#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?A` Xx(# $%X  Evidenceintherecordindicatesthatpatientmortalityratesforabortionsincreaseasthe , lengthofpregnancyincreases.Studiesalsosuggestthatalargemajorityofwomenwhohave  enduredwaitingperiodspriortoobtaininganabortionhavesufferedincreasedstress,nauseaand  physicaldiscomfort,butveryfewhavereportedanybenefitfromhavingtowait.Moreover, t evidenceintherecordindicatesthatthewaitingperiodincreasesawomansfinancialand Z psychologicalburdens,sincemanywomenmusttravellongdistancesandbeabsentfromwork @ toobtainanabortion.PlannedParenthoodpresentsacompellingargumentthat,b