JUDGE SAYS PARENTS DON'T HAVE TO KNOW

by

Thomas A. Horkan, Jr.

August 19, 1999

   On July 26 Judge Terry Lewis of the Circuit Court in Tallahassee blocked the Parental Notice of Abortion Act, a Florida law requiring notice to a parent before an abortion is performed on a minor girl.

   The courts have long rejected any right to life of the unborn child.  Now this ruling, and an earlier one by the Florida Supreme Court, strip away from vulnerable youth the protective cloak of family and drive another stake into the heart and soul of parental rights.

   The more times I read this latest opinion, and the longer I think about it, the madder I get.  Listening to all the enlightened pundits on television and in the press, after the violence of Littleton, Colo., and other places, expound on the failure of the family and on parental neglect compounds this ire. You would think that our modern society and its courts are the victims, not the culprit, of this assault on family and civility

   The statute that was struck down was carefully drawn to meet expected court challenges.  It recited the need for the law and contained a series of procedures to allow a girl to go to court to obtain a court order waiving the requirement for parental consent.  These were required by rulings of the U. S. Supreme Court. This statute stated its purpose as:
   "To further the state's interest of protecting minors against their own immaturity, fostering family unity and preserving the family as a viable social unit, protecting the constitutional rights of parents to rear children who are members of their household, and reducing teenage pregnancy and unnecessary abortions . . . (and) to ensure that parents are able to meet their high duty to seek out and follow medical advice pertaining to their children, stay apprized of the medical needs and physical condition of their children and recognize complications that might arise following medical procedures or services . . . "

   Further, it recognized the prior state Supreme Court ruling, in the case of In Re: T. W., which had struck down a law requiring parental consent.  It stated that this new law required only notice, not consent, and was carefully drawn so as to conform to that court ruling.

   That conclusion was rejected by Judge Lewis.  I think he was wrong, but maybe the Supreme Court is the right place to decide this.  Judge Lewis was rigidly following the letter, if not the spirit of that court's earlier decision.

   In striking down the requirement for parental notice, the judge said, "If a 12-year-old child becomes pregnant she must choose between one of two courses of action:  (1) terminate the pregnancy; or (2) carry it to full term."  He then gives lip service to parental involvement, but concludes that this 12-year-old has a "right of privacy" to have an abortion without parental notice.  "Terminate the pregnancy" is an euphemism for abortion.

   Two things are pertinent about this decision:  first, the reasoning of the two decisions and the way this decision expands on what I had thought was an extreme Supreme Court decision; and second, the overwhelming testimony in favor of this statute.

   The decision in In Re: T. W. applied the 1980 constitutional amendment establishing our right of privacy.  If the issue of abortion had been raised in 1980, the amendment would never have become part of the Constitution.

   However, the Supreme Court held that it obviously extended to the right to abortion, that it was a stronger right than that included in the U. S. Constitution, and further, since it was provided for "all natural persons," it included minors.  The court further held that since there was a statute (section 743.065, F.S.) that allowed minor pregnant girls the right to obtain medical care without parents' consent, but not an abortion, that a Florida law requiring parental consent for abortion was unconstitutional.

   Section 743.065, F.S. was adopted in the '70s to permit health clinics to deal with runaway teens who were flocking to Florida in those turbulent times.

   I heard the arguments before the Supreme Court in In Re T. W., and I am sure no one anticipated such an expansive ruling, which specifically dealt with the consent requirement.  This present case has expanded yet again on that ruling, and will confront the Supreme Court with this new scope of its prior ruling.  This new law leaves intact the rule that the minor has the right to the abortion without parents' consent, and only assures that the parent will know.  We will have to wait to see how the Supreme Court will rule on it.

   The evidence before this court was very moving.  Two physicians and a psychologist testified to the severe dangers that confront minors in abortions and the need for parental involvement.  Statistics were presented concerning the results of similar laws in the 31 states, showing reductions not only in abortions, but in teenage pregnancies, and the development of an increasing responsibility of young people, especially in sexual matters.  The thought that this is unconstitutional in Florida just doesn't seem credible.

   The biggest problem with this decision and the statewide reporting of it is the seeming resignation of Floridians when they hear or read of these rulings.

   People ought to be raising Cain about this, to their friends, to the press, to public officials. Courts have to be immune from public pressure, but decisions that are wrong have a way of eventually straightening out.  But, in the meantime, all of us should be arousing our fellow citizens to this result, since our last resort if this decision stands, is a constitutional amendment, a massive undertaking.