With respect to stare decisis, I believe the majority’s excellent analysis meets the high bar for proving “a special justification, over and above the belief that the precedent was wrongly decided[,]” such that overruling Fischer is proper.

Below, the Commonwealth Court dismissed Providers’ petition for review for two reasons: because (1) Providers “lack standing to vindicate the constitutional rights of third parties[,]” Allegheny Reprod.

Today we reverse on both points, allowing Providers’ lawsuit to proceed, including as to their claim that abortion (or, more broadly, reproductive autonomy) “is a fundamental right under the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Petition for Review at 30.

As recently explained, 1 For the sake of consistency, I refer to Justice Donohue’s opinion as the “majority opinion.” I recognize, however, the second paragraph of footnote 11 (which I do not join) and Sections III.E and III.F.3.b have not garnered a majority.

Respectfully, I am not convinced we should act any differently here.2 In my view, now that Fischer no longer stands in the way, it falls to the Commonwealth Court to address Providers’ claims in the first instance.

I also join section II(B) of the majority opinion, which concludes that the Commonwealth Court erred in permitting various state legislators (“Intervenors”) to intervene in this matter pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2327, based on Intervenors’ assertion that a decision invalidating the Coverage Exclusion would affect their authority to appropriate government funds.

3 Article I, Section 1 provides: “All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.” Pa. Const.

Observing that the government, through the Coverage Exclusion, was not penalizing individuals for exercising a right to terminate their pregnancies, but, rather, “merely decid[ing] not to fund that choice in favor 7 We noted that, even assuming that the classification warranted heightened (intermediate) scrutiny, it would still pass constitutional muster.

Thus, pursuant to the doctrine of stare decisis, “for purposes of certainty and stability in the law, ‘a conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those which follow, if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different.’” Id. at 966-67 (citation omitted).

Assuming, arguendo, that our state constitution guarantees a right to reproductive autonomy, as the majority concludes, I find Fischer’s application of the penalty test to be reasonable, as it is consistent with our recognition that Art.

With respect to stare decisis, I believe the majority’s excellent analysis meets the high bar for proving “a special justification, over and above the belief that the precedent was wrongly decided[,]” such that overruling Fischer is proper.

Below, the Commonwealth Court dismissed Providers’ petition for review for two reasons: because (1) Providers “lack standing to vindicate the constitutional rights of third parties[,]” Allegheny Reprod.

Today we reverse on both points, allowing Providers’ lawsuit to proceed, including as to their claim that abortion (or, more broadly, reproductive autonomy) “is a fundamental right under the Pennsylvania Constitution.” Petition for Review at 30.

As recently explained, 1 For the sake of consistency, I refer to Justice Donohue’s opinion as the “majority opinion.” I recognize, however, the second paragraph of footnote 11 (which I do not join) and Sections III.E and III.F.3.b have not garnered a majority.

Respectfully, I am not convinced we should act any differently here.2 In my view, now that Fischer no longer stands in the way, it falls to the Commonwealth Court to address Providers’ claims in the first instance.

) Because those members would not qualify to proceed under the Procurement Code but are nonetheless aggrieved, PHA contends those members retained the right to file this action in our original jurisdiction.

None of those provisions prohibited abortions based solely on race, sex, or disability.

Mothers Offering Maternal Support,

Minnesota counsel for respondents Dr. Jane Doe, et al., moves to admit attorney Tanya Pellegrini of California, pro hac vice.

The motion addresses the relevant criteria.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Attorney Tanya Pellegrini is admitted pro hac vice and authorized to appear before this court in connection with this appeal.

Dated: July 24, 2023

On July 21, 2023, Doe parties filed a motion to accept a late brief.

The motion notes that Doe parties timely submitted a brief for filing on July 20, 2023.

Doe parties submitted a conforming brief for filing pending this court’s decision on their motion.

The short delay in the filing of Doe parties’ brief will not significantly affect processing of the appeal.

To avoid any prejudice to appellant, we will extend the time for the filing of appellant’s reply as directed below.

Appellant Mothers Offering Maternal Support’s brief and addendum were due on June 9, 2023.

The clerk of the appellate courts rejected the brief and addendum because they were untimely and unsigned.

Appellant submitted a signed brief and addendum for filing pending this court’s decision on appellant’s motion.

Doe parties argue that appellant’s “untimely submission of its brief compounds the prejudice of its already untimely intervention request,” appellant’s “failure to comply with the rules in this instance is not justified,” and appellant’s “appeal is meritless.” Doe parties also argue that the portion of the district court’s decision “denying permissive intervention is unappealable” and that appellant “should not be permitted to file an untimely brief on an unappealable issue.”

To avoid any prejudice to respondents, we will extend the time for the filing of respondents’ briefs as directed below.