State Supreme Court strikes down parental notification abortion law

TALLAHASSEE (FBW)–The Florida Supreme Court struck down a law July 10 that required minors to notify their parents at least 48 hours before obtaining an abortion.

The 1999 Parental Notice Act, signed by Governor Jeb Bush, never went into effect because of a court challenge. The law was struck down by a 5-1 vote and reversed a 1st District Court of Appeals ruling upholding the law.

Senior Justice Leander Shaw, in one of his last acts before retiring from the bench, wrote the majority opinion, saying the law violated privacy rights within the Florida Constitution.

"We recognize that the legal issue of abortion has been one of the most gut-wrenching, emotionally laden issues of the past decades in Florida," Shaw wrote. "Sitting as a court, however, we cannot be ruled by emotion."

Shaw said he did "not question the strength or sincerity of the parties’ convictions," but said a lower court’s ruling which found the act "imposed a significant restriction on a pregnant minor’s right of privacy," was correct.

Further, Shaw concurred with the 1989 Florida Supreme Court decision disallowing parental consent for abortion which he said showed the "Legislature’s less restrictive treatment of minors in other comparable procedures and practices" failed to prove that the Parent Consent Act "furthered" a compelling State interest. Shaw opined that there has been no change since then in the Legislature’s treatment of minors, and therefore the State still cannot prove a "compelling State interest."

Justice Charles Wells was the lone dissenter. Citing the 1989 act the same court struck down, he said there is a difference between notification and consent.

"It is simply logical to me that the community, acting through the State, has an exceedingly compelling interest in having parents parent their children," Wells wrote. "It is illogical to me, if the state has such a compelling interest in parental responsibility, to conclude that there is not a compelling interest in ‘notifying’ the parent when the child is in a crisis situation. How can a parent be expected to act responsibly without notice?"

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, an Orlando-based civil liberties organization, told Florida Baptist Witness he believes the court has stepped over the line in making an assumption that minors have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

"I’m disappointed that the court is engaged in judicial activism by creating a ‘so-called’ right or privacy for a minor," Staver said, "without even asking the question of whether minors have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

"We can’t just claim everyone has a privacy right," said Staver. "Minors historically have not been afforded or haven’t been able to expect a right to privacy because their decisions have been under the wing of their parents. In most medical proceedings children or minors need to have parental involvement."

Staver said the Shaw’s argument–that because pregnant minors could obtain ultrasounds or other prenatal care for their unborn child, they can also decide to undergo an abortion–is flawed.

“ Abortion is fundamentally different than having medical treatment.

”

- Mathew Staver founder Liberty Council

"He’s basically saying there’s no difference between having the right to consent for medical treatment, to having an abortion," Staver said. "Abortion is fundamentally different than having medical treatment."

Shaw’s argument fails to address what happens to a minor who suffers complications or mental trauma as a result of an abortion, said Staver.

Calling it the "end of the line," for this case," Staver said it’s "just the beginning of the journey" for the issue to make headway in Florida.

A way to move ahead on this would be to change the laws to require minors to obtain medical consent for any treatment, Staver said. A new panel of judges, two of which were recently appointed by the governor, would likely uphold this type of request.

Another way would be to "simply amend the state constitution to take the whole issue away from the judges," Staver said. "By this decision, the judiciary has become a policy legislative branch and they have, therefore, taken away the rights of the people. That’s why I think it’s time to take this decision away from the Supreme Court by a constitutional amendment."

Bill Bunkley, legislative consultant for the Florida Baptist Convention, told the Witness he also believes voters might have to examine whether there needs to be a constitutional amendment regarding the privacy issue for minors.

"I stand amazed to ... see how our State Supreme Court continues to expand their decades old ruling on the right to privacy," Bunkley said, calling the recent ruling "deplorable."

"The judges serve at the will of the people and I think this ridiculous ruling from our courts is a wake-up call that our Christian worldview, or just a common sense worldview, is being slowly torn away," Bunkley said. Florida Baptists should discuss the implication of the ruling with their pastors and youth ministers, he said.

Gov. Bush also criticized the ruling.

"The court said that the limited rights of privacy that underage Floridians have are more important than the rights of parents to have some say in their children’s’ lives," he said, according to The Miami Herald. "Put aside all the legal stuff, it is just hard to imagine we live in a society where parents wouldn’t be notified of an abortion."