United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-2407 PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF INDIANA AND KENTUCKY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARION COUNTY PROSECUTOR, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 1:18-cv-01219 — Richard L. Young, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 12, 2021 — DECIDED AUGUST 2, 2021 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, WOOD, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. This appeal queries whether an In- diana statute that requires medical providers to report com- plications “arising from” abortions to the state is unconstitu- tionally vague on its face. Although the statute has some am- biguity, we conclude that Planned Parenthood has not shown that the law is unconstitutionally vague on its face in this pre- enforcement challenge. 2 No. 20-2407

I. Background Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (“Planned Parenthood”) filed this suit on April 23, 2018 to challenge Indiana Senate Enrolled Act No. 340, which the governor signed into law on March 25, 2018. The Complaint took aim at two provisions of Enrolled Act No. 340—the Com- plications Statute and the Inspection Statute. The Complica- tions Statute, Indiana Code § 16-34-2-4.7, required physicians to report to the state “any adverse physical or psychological condition arising from the induction or performance of an abortion.” The Statute then provided a list of twenty-six con- ditions that the state considered reportable conditions. The word “including” preceded the conditions list, seemingly in- dicating that the list of twenty-six conditions was illustrative rather than exhaustive. The Inspection Statute, Indiana Code § 16-21-2-2.6, required annual inspection of abortion provid- ers’ facilities, even though other kinds of healthcare facilities are inspected less frequently. Planned Parenthood sued Indi- ana’s Health Department Commissioner and several county prosecutors (collectively, “the Defendants”) seeking a decla- ration that the two Statutes were unconstitutional and a per- manent injunction enjoining the Statutes’ enforcement. In May 2018, Planned Parenthood moved for a prelimi- nary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the Complica- tions Statute. The district court held a hearing on the motion in June, and then granted Planned Parenthood’s motion and preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the Complications Statute as unconstitutionally vague. In its order granting Planned Parenthood’s motion, the court found that there was constitutionally intolerable over- lap between “normal” side effects of abortions and No. 20-2407 3 “complications” that would trigger the reporting require- ment. As a result, the Statute “fail[ed] to inform [Plaintiffs of] what conduct is prohibited.” The district court was concerned that physicians would “run the risk of being found … to be out of compliance with their statutory responsibilities” (and thereby risking time in prison and their medical licenses) for failing to report “every ‘adverse physical or psychological condition’ for which patients seek treatment as a reportable condition, no matter how routine, minor, and expected.” The district court found the Complications Statute’s illustrative list of conditions to be “so broad or vague that they do not remedy the uncertainty of the general definition of ‘abortion complication.’” In response, Indiana amended the Complications Statute. In the 2019 version, the legislature eliminated the “including” lang