Before performing any abortion or inducing any miscarriage or terminating a pregnancy as provided in § 18.2-72, 18.2-73, or 18.2-74, the physician or, if such abortion, induction, or termination is to be performed pursuant to § 18.2-72, either the physician or the advanced practice registered nurse authorized pursuant to clause (ii) of § 18.2-72 to perform such abortion, induction, or termination shall obtain the informed written consent of the pregnant woman. However, if the woman has been adjudicated incapacitated by any court of competent jurisdiction or if the physician or, if the abortion, induction, or termination is to be performed pursuant to § 18.2-72, either the physician or the advanced practice registered nurse authorized pursuant to clause (ii) of § 18.2-72 to perform such abortion, induction, or termination knows or has good reason to believe that such woman is incapacitated as adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, then only after permission is given in writing by a parent, guardian, committee, or other person standing in loco parentis to the woman, may the physician or, if the abortion, induction, or termination is to be performed pursuant to § 18.2-72, either the physician or the advanced practice registered nurse authorized pursuant to clause (ii) of § 18.2-72 to perform such abortion, induction, or termination perform the abortion or otherwise terminate the pregnancy.
Code 1950, § 18.1-62.1; 1970, c. 508; 1972, c. 823; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1979, c. 250; 1997, c. 801; 2001, cc. 473, 477; 2003, c. 784; 2012, c. 131; 2020, cc. 898, 899; 2023, c. 183.
Notes of Decisions
EMW Women's Surgical Ctr. v. Andrew Beshear, 920 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019).
“Code § 41-41-34 ; Va. Code § 18.2-76. Ten require doctors to offer the patient the chance to view the ultrasound image if they perform one.”
Simopoulos v. Commonwealth, 277 S.E.2d 194 (Va. 1981).
· cites it 2× “§ 18.2-76. 8. Any person who promotes or induces the performance of a *1067 process prohibited by Article 9 is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.”
Falls Church Med. Ctr., LLC v. Oliver, 346 F. Supp. 3d 816 (E.D. Va. 2018).
· cites it 13× “) 6 Finally, Plaintiffs question the so-called "Two-Trip Mandatory Delay Law," Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76 (B)-(C), as another example of the statutory scheme "restricting abortion while targeting, marginalizing, and impeding the healthcare professionals *822 who provide abortion…”
Winchester Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Boyce, 10 Va. Cir. 541 (Frederick Cir. Ct. 1984).
· cites it 3× “Related to one or more of these issues is any significance which can be attributed to the fact that § 18.2-76, Code 1950, a criminal statute on abortion, was amended by Acts 1979, c.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76(C) — 1 case
Falls Church Med. Ctr., LLC v. Oliver, 346 F. Supp. 3d 816 (E.D. Va. 2018).
“) 6 Finally, Plaintiffs question the so-called "Two-Trip Mandatory Delay Law," Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76 (B)-(C), as another example of the statutory scheme "restricting abortion while targeting, marginalizing, and impeding the healthcare professionals *822 who provide abortion…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76(G) — 1 case
Falls Church Med. Ctr., LLC v. Oliver, 346 F. Supp. 3d 816 (E.D. Va. 2018).
“) 6 Finally, Plaintiffs question the so-called "Two-Trip Mandatory Delay Law," Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-76 (B)-(C), as another example of the statutory scheme "restricting abortion while targeting, marginalizing, and impeding the healthcare professionals *822 who provide abortion…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.