The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday set aside Florida's 1999 parental notification for abortion law. The 5-1 ruling means minors cannot be compelled by law to notify their parents of their intention to have an abortion.
But this probably is not a closed case. Every justice who heard the case wrote a separate opinion based on a different rationale, and two current justices, both appointed by Gov. Jeb Bush, did not participate in the decision.
The majority opinion, written by the now-retired Justice Leander Shaw, focused on minors' rights under the privacy clause of the state Constitution, approved by voters in 1980, which gives broad protections against government intrusion into personal decisions. The question for the court was whether a minor's right to have an abortion could be constrained by a state rule requiring either parental notice or a judge's consent to bypass the notice. Shaw wrote that the state had failed to demonstrate that the notice law furthered a compelling state interest using the narrowest means available.
The concurring opinions dissected the parental notification law on narrower grounds - and created fewer concerns about the precedents Shaw's opinion might create for other family medical decisions involving minors.
Justice Barbara Pariente questioned the state's claimed reasons for passing the law. As to the state's interest in making sure teenage girls obtain "appropriate medical care," Pariente pointed out that an abortion procedure is relatively safe, certainly compared to childbirth. Yet, the state doesn't require minors to notify parents when they are authorizing medical procedures related to carrying a child to term. This discrepancy demonstrates that the statute was not a genuine effort to further the health interests of minors but an attempt to make abortions more difficult to obtain.
As to the state's asserted interest in "preserving the integrity of the family," Pariente said that a majority of minors already choose to involve a parent in an abortion decision. Those who do not may be reacting to the prospect of being ostracized, physically harmed or thrown out of the house. Pariente said a mandatory notification statute, rather than promoting family integrity, "could cause family tension, trauma and irreparable rifts."
Two members of the majority indicated very tentative support for the privacy rights asserted by Shaw. Justice Fred Lewis said outright that he would have supported the statute had it not been for standing precedent. And Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead said he would have come out differently if the government had brought "more consistency to the legislative provisions concerning a minor's health care" and mandated parental notice for other important health care decisions. Justice Charles Wells was the lone dissent.
No doubt abortion foes are counting votes and see, even with this setback, an opportunity to try again. The responsible reaction by the Legislature would be to craft a new parental notification law that truly protects the medical and personal interests of pregnant minors. But then, that wouldn't serve the interests of those who want to use medical concerns as cover for a harsh antiabortion law that would harm many of the girls it purports to help.
