Posted on 07/14/2003 6:58:17 AM PDT by Froggie
Fla. Supreme Court strikes down parental notice abortion law PENSACOLA, FLORIDA - AP World News via NewsEdge Corporation : The Florida Supreme Court has struck down a law that requires parents to be notified at least 48 hours before their children under 18 can obtain abortions.
By a 5-1 vote Thursday, the justices in Tallahassee said the 1999 law violates privacy rights guaranteed under the Florida Constitution.
The opinion reinforced and relied heavily on a similar state Supreme Court decision that overturned a parental consent abortion law in 1989. That decision also rested on the state constitution's explicit privacy guarantee.
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, Senior Justice Leander Shaw wrote for the majority. Sitting as a court, however, we cannot be ruled by emotion.
He said the state's privacy guarantee is stronger than rights provided by the U.S. Constitution. The majority found no compelling state interest in restricting the privacy guarantee with a parental-notification law.
Lawmakers had passed a similar notification bill in 1998 but it was vetoed by then-Gov. Lawton Chiles. Gov. Jeb Bush, brother of President George W. Bush, signed the bill a year later, but it was never enforced because of the legal challenge from abortion providers.
The ruling was criticized by the governor, an abortion opponent.
It's hard to imagine we live in a society where parents wouldn't be notified of an abortion, Bush said.
The Republican governor was thrust into a heated debate over abortion earlier this year after he sought to have a guardian appointed for the fetus of a severely retarded rape victim, apparently because of the possibility she might obtain an abortion.
A state judge in Orlando repeatedly said there was no basis in the law for appointing a guardian for a fetus. The court appointed a guardian for the woman herself, and a plan was reached for the pregnancy to go forward.
Abortion-rights proponents were pleased with the court's decision Thursday.
The court recognized the harms that such laws impose on young women, including possible physical and emotional abuse, lack of access to confidential medical care, forced teen motherhood and delay in obtaining medical care, said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer for the New York City-based Center for Reproductive Law & Policy.
Anderson said the decision cannot be appealed to the federal level because it is grounded in the Florida Constitution.
This decision is outrageous and terrible, said Mike McCarron, executive director of the Florida Catholic Conference. It robs children of their parents' involvement in vital health decisions, and it robs the parents of their right to raise and properly care for their children, he said.
First, you fail to address any other example but this one and you even manage to mischaracterize that. At no time had I suggested that class time would be interrupted. Second, what does one get from a Marxist professor but a sermon? Third, the students aren't paying for very much. Check out the revenue sources for a state university.
Your head!
"No controlling legal authority", eh? No one would have said so about a teacher's aide wearing a crucifix, either. There is a first time for everything. That is the power of precedent.
The advocates for judicial power always say that: "Oh, the court will never go that far." And they always do.
And if you display religious material for YOU, as opposed to for all visitors to your office, that example is equally ridiculous.
Are you saying that a professor, putting religious literature on his office door, is in violation of "separation" or not?
It is the unalienable right and responsibility of parents to raise their children as they see fit.
Any infringement of that right violates the Constitution of Florida absent malfeasance or neglect.
Any person or judge that claims different can only be a communist.
Perhaps you should read the article, and the law. This court didn't infringe on anyone's right to raise their children. Those people on this thread who say there are no legal notice and consent requirements for abortion are lying. All this court did was strike down an additional requirement, on top of the ones that exist for medical procedures in general.
Also, perhaps you should find a definition of communist.
The school's policy -- not a policy of the nurse -- has the force of law.
[snip]
Any strict constructionists want to step up to the plate and show us where teenagers are excluded from the constitutional privacy right?
Wrong angle. Instead, it should be pointed out that parental supervision of their children does not count as "governmental intrusion".
The language and intent of that portion of the FL Constitution clearly means to protect people from GOVERNMENT meddling. It shouldn't be construed to mean that the government is supposed to stand between parents monitoring and having a say in their children's actions.
Interpreted too broadly, this clause could be read to overturn almost every law in Florida. Because if going to a *public* health provider is a "private" matter, then what isn't? Surreptitiously buying heroin from Joe on the street corner is just as "private" a transaction, why isn't that protected?
2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.--The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.
This Court didn't say that. The Legislature hasn't said it. That argument is a red herring. There is no action here interfering with a parent raising their child. All this did was remove an additional law requiring additional communication between a physician and a parent, over and above the requirements that already exist for medical treatment. That's all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.