News Abortion

Alaska Parental Notification Law Upheld by Superior Court

Robin Marty

The 2010 parental-notification law has been ruled constitutional, but it still may come up before the state Supreme Court.

Alaska teens, who are 17 years of age and younger, either have to inform a parent before getting an abortion, or undergo an arduous judicial-bypass process, thanks to a 2010 ballot amendment that made parental notification a state requirement. Court challenges have questioned the constitutionality of the rule, citing a teen’s right to privacy, but so far, the law stands.

Via Anchorage Daily News:

Besides upholding the overall law, [Anchorage Superior Court Judge John] Suddock struck some aspects, while reinstating others — including the possibility of criminal penalties — that had been blocked since a preliminary ruling in December 2010.

Suddock ruled that:

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

• Doctors and clinics who perform abortions without ensuring parents are notified can face criminal prosecution. That element had been on hold. But he struck a provision allowing civil damages against providers.

• Other members of clinic staffs can notify parents — doctors don’t have to do it themselves, even though the voter initiative required it. One witness testified that the process can take an hour or longer.

• Parents who accompany a minor to the clinic must show proof of the relationship, such as a birth certificate, a requirement that also had been on hold.

According to the Anchorage Daily News, less than 90 teens received abortion care in 2011, the first year the law was in effect. Only nine teens used bypass rather than notify a parent. Eight teens received approval from the judge, and one withdrew her request.

News Abortion

Parental Notification Law Struck Down in Alaska

Michelle D. Anderson

"The reality is that some young women face desperate circumstances and potentially violent consequences if they are forced to bring their parents into their reproductive health decisions," said Janet Crepps, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. "This law would have deprived these vulnerable women of their constitutional rights and put them at risk of serious harm."

The Alaska Supreme Court has struck down a state law requiring physicians to give the parents, guardians, or custodians of teenage minors a two-day notice before performing an abortion.

The court ruled that the parental notification law, which applies to teenagers younger than 18, violated the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection guarantee and could not be enforced.

The ruling stems from an Anchorage Superior Court decision that involved the case of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands and physicians Dr. Jan Whitefield and Dr. Susan Lemagie against the State of Alaska and the notification law’s sponsors.

In the lower court ruling, a judge denied Planned Parenthood’s requested preliminary injunction against the law as a whole and went on to uphold the majority of the notification law.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Planned Parenthood and the physicians had appealed that superior court ruling and asked for a reversal on both equal protection and privacy grounds.

Meanwhile, the State of Alaska and the notification law’s sponsors appealed the court’s decision to strike some of its provisions and the court’s ruling.

The notification law came about after an initiative approved by voters in August 2010. The law applied to “unemancipated, unmarried minors” younger than 18 seeking to terminate a pregnancy and only makes exceptions in documented cases of abuse and medical emergencies, such as one in which the pregnant person’s life is in danger.

Justice Daniel E. Winfree wrote in the majority opinion that the anti-choice law created “considerable tension between a minor’s fundamental privacy right to reproductive choice and how the State may advance its compelling interests.”

He said the law was discriminatory and that it could unjustifiably burden “the fundamental privacy rights only of minors seeking pregnancy termination, rather than [equally] to all pregnant minors.”

Chief Justice Craig Stowers dissented, arguing that the majority’s opinion “unjustifiably” departed from the Alaska Supreme Court’s prior approval of parental notification.

Stowers said the opinion “misapplies our equal protection case law by comparing two groups that are not similarly situated, and fails to consider how other states have handled similar questions related to parental notification laws.”

Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) officials praised the court’s ruling, saying that Alaska’s vulnerable teenagers will now be relieved of additional burdensome hurdles in accessing abortion care. Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, CRR, and Planned Parenthood represented plaintiffs in the case.

Janet Crepps, senior counsel at CRR, said in a statement that the “decision provides important protection to the safety and well-being of young women who need to end a pregnancy.”

“The reality is that some young women face desperate circumstances and potentially violent consequences if they are forced to bring their parents into their reproductive health decisions. This law would have deprived these vulnerable women of their constitutional rights and put them at risk of serious harm,” Crepps said.

CRR officials also noted that most young women seeking abortion care involve a parent, but some do not because they live an abusive or unsafe home.

The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine have said minors’ access to confidential reproductive health services should be protected, according to CRR.

News Law and Policy

Texas Supreme Court Curbs Minors’ Access to Abortion Care

Jessica Mason Pieklo

New rules issued by the Texas Supreme Court are designed to make it impossible for minors to access an abortion, advocates claim.

Minors needing an abortion in Texas without parental consent have a new web of rules to navigate in 2016.

The Texas Supreme Court issued the rules in late December to implement HB 3994, the state’s newly passed judicial bypass law that governs the process for abused and neglected minors to obtain court approval to consent to an abortion.

The rules took effect January 1, imposing extensive restrictions for those minors seeking a judicial bypass for an abortion. Advocates claim such restrictions are unconstitutional.

“Judicial bypass protects vulnerable pregnant teens who cannot find or safely turn to a parent,” Tina Hester, executive director of Jane’s Due Process, a nonprofit advocacy organization serving minors in need of reproductive health care, said in a statement following the release of the rules. “But the legislature and Governor Abbott decided to go after abused and neglected pregnant teens by amending this law.”

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

One of the most significant changes made to the judicial bypass process by HB 3994 is to remove the enforcement deadlines for the judge to rule on a minor’s request for an abortion. Advocates claim this provision effectively allows a judge to stall out a minor until they can no longer obtain a legal abortion.

“When a minor cannot even get a hearing or a court ruling in time, the state is then making her decision for her,” Susan Hays, legal counsel and a founding mother of Jane’s Due Process, said in a statement. “Such abuse of state power amounts to an ‘absolute veto’ of her decision and is under U.S. Supreme Court precedent unconstitutional.”

Hays was one of a number of legal experts who served on a specially convened judicial bypass rules subcommittee to advise the Texas Supreme Court as it considered the judicial bypass rules. That advisory committee recommended rules Hays said would minimize constitutional violations.

“The rules advisory committee offered suggestions to make the new law, House Bill 3994, more useful for both the courts and the clients, and less unconstitutional,” Hays said.

The Texas Supreme Court rejected the advice of the advisory committee and instead issued final rules governing the judicial bypass process that advocates claim are even more restrictive than those considered by legislators when they passed HB 3994.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the late 1970s that to be constitutional, a judicial bypass process must be anonymous, expeditious, and provide an effective opportunity for a minor to obtain an abortion. The new Texas requirements violate these requirements in a number of ways, advocates claim.

First, HB 3994 extends the time for a judge to rule on a minor’s request for a judicial bypass from two business days to five and declares a case denied if the judge does not rule within those five days. Advocates contend this requirement could have the harmful effect of pushing a minor into a more expensive procedure or past the legal limit for abortion, especially considering long clinic wait times since the passage of HB 2, Texas’ clinic-closure law.

The law requires minors to provide the judge considering the bypass their name, home address, and phone number, therefore erasing patient anonymity and confidentiality. HB 3994 also requires most minors to file their request for a bypass in their home county if its population is more than 10,000, including in cases of rape.

“How heartless for the law to have no exception for a rape survivor fearful of seeing her rapist at the courthouse,” Hays said.

Minors often pursue a judicial bypass for an abortion when parents are abusive, missing, deported, incarcerated, deceased, or drug dependent, according to advocates.

Advocates claim that many Texas courthouses are unwilling to assist minors in applying for bypass. A 2015 Jane’s Due Process survey of more than 80 Texas counties found that 81 percent of counties did not have immediate knowledge of the judicial bypass process and 37 percent of the counties denied entirely a teenager’s ability to file for a bypass.

The refusal rate was 58 percent in counties with fewer than 50,000 people.

Supporters of the law said the new requirements closed “loopholes” in the judicial bypass process that allowed minors to manipulate the courts into granting abortions without their parents’ consent. “We are pleased with the Supreme Court’s strong rules regarding the judicial bypass process for abortions on minor girls,” Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, said in a statement. “These bring to fruition a 10-year effort by Texas Alliance for Life and a coalition of pro-life organizations to protect minor girls in Texas from abortion.”

Reproductive rights advocates have not yet challenged the requirements in court. If they do, it would mark yet another court fight over abortion rights in Texas. The U.S. Supreme Court in March will hear arguments on the constitutionality of portions of another Texas anti-abortion law, HB 2, which, if allowed to stand, will close more than 75 percent of the abortion clinics in the state.

credo_rewire_vote_3

Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!

VOTE!

Thank you for supporting our work!