JEFFERSON CITY, MO. ? Atty. Gen. Jay Nixon said Wednesday that Missouri’s 24-hour waiting period for abortions is in effect – at least temporarily – as a result of a federal appeals court decision that a preliminary injunction was too broad.

Nixon’s interpretation of Wednesday’s 2-1 decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals runs contrary to that of officials at abortion provider Planned Parenthood, which challenged the law as unconstitutionally vague.

The St. Louis-based appeals panel said the constitutional claim was a close call and upheld the lower court’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction. But the appeals panel said the June 2004 order by U.S. District Judge Scott O. Wright went beyond what was necessary.

So the appeals court vacated Wright’s decision and sent the case back for him to issue a modified preliminary injunction.

“The injunction is vacated and Missouri’s 24-hour informed consent requirement is now in place,” as soon as the appeals court sends its official mandate to the lower court, Nixon said.

But Planned Parenthood attorney Arthur Benson disagreed.

“There is no basis for suggesting that the Court of Appeals wanted the 24-hour notice to go out of effect for a few days” until a revised injunction is issued, Benson said.

Enacted when lawmakers overrode then-Gov. Bob Holden’s veto, the 2003 law requires physicians to wait 24 hours after conferring with women before performing abortions. That consultation must cover such things as “the indicators and contraindicators” and the “physical, psychological and situational” risk factors associated with abortions.

Doctors who violate the law can face up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a 24-hour abortion waiting period after an informational session with women in Pennsylvania in a 1992 case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.

In Missouri, Planned Parenthood affiliates challenged the law in both federal and state courts, claiming the consultation requirements are unconstitutionally vague and place physicians under the threat of prosecution for something they may not understand.

Wright’s preliminary injunction allowed time for Planned Parenthood to first pursue the state lawsuit, on which the Missouri Supreme Court heard arguments last week but has not yet ruled.

Wednesday’s appeals court decision said Wright’s injunction prohibiting prosecutors and the attorney general “from in any way enforcing” the law went beyond what was necessary.

Specifically, the appeals panel said the informed consent requirement upheld in the 1992 Pennsylvania case should be allowed, and that the state Department of Health and Senior Services should be allowed to disseminate a patient consent form that physicians could use.

The appeals panel also said the preliminary injunction should have included an automatic expiration to occur 10 days after a final judgment in the state case.

Nixon said the appeals court reference to the Pennsylvania precedent “makes relatively certain that the 24-hour waiting period is constitutionally supported” in Missouri. Based on that, a lower court could allow the waiting period to remain in effect while the legal battle continues over the language in the consultation requirement.

But Planned Parenthood asserted that both the consent process and the wait should remain on hold.

“The best news for women in Missouri is that the preliminary injunction continues,” said Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. “So women will not have to, at this point, jump over the kinds of hurdles that this legislation would create.”

Anti-abortion groups also drew encouragement from the decision.

Larry Weber, executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, which opposes abortion, said the ruling allows Missouri “to at least make some tentative steps forward in enforcing this law.”

The appeals court ruling was written by Chief Judge James Loken, with Senior Judge George Fagg agreeing.

Judge Kermit Bye dissented, claiming Nixon was immune from the lawsuit and, because he was the only party who appealed, the appeals court had no jurisdiction to consider the case.