FinerL. B.HenshawS. K., “Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States in 2000,”Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health35, no. 1 (2003): 6–15, at 13.
SimonS., “Abortion Foes Work to Expand Informed-Consent Laws,”Los Angeles Times, April 12, 2007.
6.
Those states are Georgia (House Bill 147), Idaho (House Bill 248), and Mississippi (Senate Bill 2391).
7.
House Bill 3355, 117th Gen. Assem. §§ A(1)(a), A(1)(b) (S.C. 2007).
8.
S. C.Code Ann. § 44-41-350 (2006).
9.
SheininA. G., “S. C. House: View Fetal Image Prior to Abortion,”The State (South Carolina), March 22, 2007.
10.
BurrisR. A., “Abortion Ultrasound Bill Likely to Change,”The State (South Carolina), March 29, 2007.
11.
Letter from Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, to Michael L. Fair, State Senator (April 3, 2007).
12.
Id.
13.
BurrisR., “Ultrasound an ‘Option’ in Bill,”The State (South Carolina), April 19, 2007.
14.
SmithT., “Abortion-Ultrasound Bill Undergoes Change,”The Greenville News (South Carolina), May 16, 2007.
15.
AdcoxS., “Vote on Compromise Ultrasound Abortion Bill Delayed,”The State (South Carolina), June 5, 2007.
16.
S. D. Codified Laws § 34–23A-10.1 (2006).
17.
S. D. Codified Laws § 34–23A-10.2 (2006).
18.
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota v. Rounds, 375 F. Supp. 2d 881 (D.S.D. 2005), aff'd 467 F. 3d 716 (8th Cir. 2006), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, No. 05–3093 (8th Cir. January 9, 2007).
19.
Id., at 888.
20.
Planned Parenthood Minnesota v. Rounds, 467 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2006) reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, No. 05–3093, (8th Cir. January 9, 2007) [hereinafter cited as Parenthood].
21.
Id., at 725–26.
22.
Id., at 723.
23.
Id., at 724.
24.
Id., at 727.
25.
Id., at 738 (Judge Greunder dissenting).
26.
Id.
27.
SaulnyS., “Full Federal Appellate Court Will Revisit Abortion Issue in South Dakota,”New York Times, April 11, 2007.
28.
See Simon, supra note 5.
29.
See Parenthood, supra note 20, at 724.
30.
Carhart v. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. 1610, 1620 (2007) [hereinafter cited as Carhart].
31.
Id., at 1622.
32.
Id., at 1628.
33.
Id., at 1645 (Justice Ginsburg dissenting).
34.
Id., at 1635 (majority opinion).
35.
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).
36.
See Carhart, supra note 30, at 1618.
37.
See supra note 16.
38.
See Carhart, supra note 30, at 1648, n. 7 (Justice Ginsburg dissenting) (noting the evidence against the contention that women who obtain abortions are at higher risk for psychological distress than women who carry their pregnancies to term).
39.
Id., at 1633, 1638; see also id., at 1650 (Justice Ginsburg dissenting).
40.
Id., at 1633 (majority opinion).
41.
Id., at 1647 (Justice Ginsburg dissenting).
42.
Id., at 1627 (majority opinion).
43.
505 U.S. at 851 (plurality opinion).
44.
Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health, 281 Conn. 277 (2007) [hereinafter cited as Batte-Holmgren].
45.
Id.
46.
Id., at n. 1.
47.
Id., at 280–82 (citing Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-342 [2003]).
48.
Id., at 282.
49.
Id., at 282–83.
50.
Id., at 283–92.
51.
Id., at 292–308.
52.
Id., at 284 (quoting Conn. Prac. Book § 17–56 [b]).
53.
Id., at 284.
54.
Id.
55.
Id., at 288.
56.
Id.
57.
Id., at 289.
58.
Id., at 288.
59.
Id., at 294.
60.
Id., at 295.
61.
Id.
62.
Id., at n. 14.
63.
Id., at n. 12.
64.
Id.
65.
Id., at 297–98 (citing Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 30–23 and 30–23a).
66.
Id.
67.
Id., at 298–300.
68.
Id., at 298.
69.
Id.
70.
Id., at 304.
71.
Id., at 304–5.
72.
Id., at 305 (quoting Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713, 718 [1983]).
73.
Department of Taxation and Finance of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., 512 U.S. 61 (1994) (discussed in Batte-Holmgren, supra note 1, at 305–306) [hereinafter cited as Department].
74.
See Batte-Holmgren, supra note 1, at 305–306 (discussing Department of Taxation & Finance of New York, 512 U.S. 61 [1994]).
75.
Id., at 305.
76.
See Department, supra note 30.
77.
See Batte-Holmgren, supra note 1.
78.
Id., at 305–6 (discussing Department, supra note 30).
79.
Id.
80.
Id.
81.
Id., at 307–8.
82.
Id., at 308.
83.
Montgomery County v. Anchor Inn Seafood Restaurant, 374 Md. 327 (2003) (cited in Batte-Holmgren, supra note 1, at 303); Club 2000, Inc. v. Rhode Island, Superior Court, Docket No. 05–135 (March 31, 2005) (cited in Batte-Holmgren, supra note 1, at 302); Ohio Licensed Beverage Assn. v. Ohio Dept. Health, Franklin County Common Pleas Case No. 07-CV-005103 (Ohio Common Pleas filed April 13, 2007) (court granted temporary restraining order making private clubs curtailing private clubs' exemption from the smoking ban), available at <http://suealtmeyer.typepad.com/cleveland_law_library_web/business_regulation/index.html> (last visited September 28, 2007).
84.
Retail Industry Leaders Association v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180, 198 (4th Cir. 2007) [hereinafter cited as Retail Industry].
85.
Id., at 183 (citing Md. Code Ann., Labor and Employment §§ 8.5–101 to −07 [2006]).
86.
See Retail Industry, supra note 1, at 183; Md. Code Ann., Health-General § 15–142 (2006) defines this fund.
87.
Id. (Retail Industry), at 183.
88.
Id.
89.
Id.
90.
Id., at 185. Because this court found that ERISA preempted the Fair Share Act, it did not address the merits of RILA's equal protection challenge: id., at 198.
91.
Id., at 185 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1341 [2000]).
92.
Id., at 186 (relying on Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 345 [1977]). Hunt mandated that associational standing exists when “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit”: See Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343.
93.
Id. (Retail Industry), at 186.
94.
Id.
95.
Id., at 187.
96.
Id., at 188.
97.
Id.
98.
See Hunt, supra note 9, at 343.
99.
See Retail Industry, supra note 1, at 187.
100.
Id., at 188.
101.
See Hunt, supra note 9, at 343.
102.
See Retail Industry, supra note 1, at 187.
103.
Id., at 189 (articulating the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 [2000]).
104.
28 U.S.C. § 1341 (2000).
105.
See Retail Industry, supra note 1, at 189.
106.
Id., at 189 (applying Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Caffrey, 205 F.3d 130, 134 [4th Cir. 2000]).
107.
Id., at 189 (citing Valero, 205 F.3d at 134).
108.
Id., at 189.
109.
Id., at 190.
110.
Id., at 191 (emphasis in opinion) (quoting the ERISA preemption provision at 29 U.S.C. § 1144[a]).
111.
Id., at 191 (citation omitted).
112.
Id.
113.
Id.
114.
Id., at 193.
115.
Id., at 191.
116.
Id., at 192.
117.
Id., at 193.
118.
Id., at 195.
119.
Id. In a footnote, the court went on to address Wal-Mart's other alternatives. These included moving employees to a different state so that it would employ less than 10,000 people in Maryland and reducing its payroll in order to meet the eight percent spending quota: id., at 194, n. 3. It found both suggestions so implausible that “not even the Secretary advances these arguments”: id.
120.
Id., at 195.
121.
Id.
122.
Id., at 196.
123.
Id., at 194.
124.
Id., at 197.
125.
Id., at 198.
126.
Id., at 184 (referencing the background portion of the Department of Legislative Services report that informed Maryland's General Assembly about Wal-Mart's average wage paid to employees).
127.
Id., at 198 (Judge Michael dissenting).
128.
Id., at 200 (expressing agreement with the majority “that the claims asserted by the Retail Industry Leaders Association are justiciable, but not for all of the same reasons”).
