litigation by the highly sensitive and personal nature of reproductive health care decisions, and because of their fear of becoming the targets of antiabortion or anti-Planned Parenthood hostility.” Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 117, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (“[an abortion patient] may be chilled from such assertion [of her rights] by a desire to protect the very privacy of her decision from the publicity of a court suit.”); Gold Cross Ambulance & Transfer v. City of Kansas City, 705 F.2d 1005, 1016 (8th Cir.1983) (characterizing the abortion decision at issue in Singleton as “an intimate, private decision” that hindered patients’ ability to assert their rights); Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, Inc. v. Citizens for Cmty. Action, 558 F.2d 861, 865 n. 3 (8th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). ADHS does not dispute that the numerosity
holding that certifications of parent and child regarding her desire to live with her father were sufficient to warrant a plenary hearing holding that a wifes net worth of approximately 62000 demonstrated her ability to pay her own attorneys fees notwithstanding her objection that her assets were illiquid in the form of home equity and a state retirement account holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that a teachers complaint to school authorities that her principal had instructed her to make improper changes in her own students grades was unprotected because it was made pursuant to her official duties recognizing that the pregnant womans ability to assert her own rights is beset with obstacles including her desire to protect her privacy