As I've asserted on numerous occasions, a person's PERSONAL attitude toward an issue is not a good indicator of how that person would rule, if in the position of being a judge of the facts and the law.
In this particular decision, Brown came down on the pro-life side of the issue. Her side lost.
In American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307 (1997), the majority struck down on state constitutional grounds a statute requiring pregnant minors to secure parental consent or judicial authorization before obtaining an abortion.In a lengthy dissent, Brown castigates the court for acting as a super-legislature. She states early in her dissent, "The fundamental flaw running throughout [the majority's] analysis is the utter lack of deference to the ordinary constraints of judicial decisionmaking--deference to state precedent, to federal precedent, to the collective judgment of our Legislature, and, ultimately, to the people we serve."
She is particularly dismayed by the court's lack of deference when, as here, the standards dictated by state, federal, and legislative precedent are clearly derived from history, context, and text. With regard to the statute itself, it is notable that Brown (1) finds the statute's age limitation not unreasonable, and (2) acknowledges a liberty interest in parents' controlling their children that is "historically more sacrosanct than a minor's right to privacy."
http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2003_03_23_SCOTUSblog.cfm
Lots more good stuff at that link, not all of it about Brown, but much of it including cites to other cases where Brown rendered an opinion.
Here is the ACLU take on the case ...
http://www.aclunc.org/reproductive-rights/ca-court.html
Keep in mind, the ACLU is talking about the majority in the case, and Brown dissented against the majority opinion.
Can you give me the origin and nature of the SC blog (who are Goldstein and Howe?), and who is writing the analysis of her there? (I love her references to Hogwarts and Gandalf!)
Thanks for the help.