Florida Court Voids a Law on Abortion
New York Times
Friday, July 11, 2003
Article By Adam Liptak The Florida Supreme Court yesterday struck down a law requiring minors seeking abortions to notify their parents first. The court, in a 5-to-1 decision, held that the law violated the minors' right to privacy. The Florida law, enacted in 1999 but never enforced, required minors to give parents 48 hours' notice of their decisions. In the alternative, minors could try to convince a judge that they were mature enough to decide for themselves or, if that failed, that the abortion was nevertheless in their best interest. The court decided the case under Florida's Constitution, which is one of the handful of state constitutions with an explicit right-to-privacy clause. Applying the federal Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has upheld similar notification requirements. In enacting the notification law, the Florida Legislature said that "the capacity to become pregnant and the capacity for mature judgment concerning the wisdom of an abortion are not necessarily related." Yesterday's decision relied heavily on a 1989 decision by the State Supreme Court that struck down a law that had called for not only parental notification but also parental consent. "Our decision today," Justice Leander J. Shaw wrote yesterday, on behalf of himself and three other judges, "in no way interferes with a parent's right to participate in the decision-making process or a minor's right to consult with her parents. Just the opposite. Under our decision, parent and minor are free to do as they wish in this regard, without government interference." Justice R. Fred Lewis, who said he concurred in the decision only because he considered himself bound by the 1989 decision on parental consent, said Justice Shaw's statement "is extraordinarily simplistic, naïve, and contrary to logic." "Without notice and knowledge of the facts," Justice Lewis wrote, "parents are effectively totally excluded from the process in this judicial equation." Justice Charles T. Wells dissented outright. The community, acting through the state, has an exceedingly compelling interest in having parents parent their children," Justice Wells wrote. "How can a parent be expected to act responsibly without notice?" Justice Shaw noted that abortion was a relatively safe surgical procedure and quoted the analysis of the trial judge, who first struck down the law, with approval. Bebe J. Anderson, a staff lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which helped represent the clinics, doctors and women's rights groups that challenged the law, said the case was for all intents over, as the State
Supreme Court decided only issues of state law that the United States Supreme Court cannot review. John J. Rimes III, an assistant attorney general, said the state might seek a rehearing in the State Supreme Court or propose legislation to address the court's concerns.
| 
