Access to Confidential Health Care
Planned Parenthood of Alaska v. State (Alaska) As soon as it was enacted in 1997, the Center and the ACLU of Alaska challenged the law on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Alaska and a local doctor. Most teenage girls already involve a parent or other adult in the decision to have an abortion. But some young women who are in abusive or other difficult family situations don’t feel that they can turn to their parents. D.M. was 16 years old and living in a remote corner of Alaska when she discovered she was pregnant. She knew her guardian would not let her have an abortion. Desperate, she confided in a teacher and a local preacher’s wife, threatening to kill herself or get an illegal abortion. The teacher and preacher’s wife arranged for her to have an abortion in Anchorage. When D.M.’s guardian found out what had happened, she was angry enough to give up custody of the girl. The guardian testified during the Center’s lawsuit, Planned Parenthood of Alaska v. State, that she would not have given consent if it had been required unless D.M.’s life was in danger. The Center argued that the parental consent law violates adolescents' right to equal protection by requiring parental involvement in abortion decisions, but not in other decisions such as carrying a pregnancy to term. In its decision, the Alaska Supreme Court recognized that giving parents "veto power" over a minor's decision to terminate a pregnancy robs teenage girls of their fundamental rights. Forty-four states have adopted laws requiring a young woman to obtain the consent of or notify one or both parents prior to an abortion. The Center has challenged such laws in six states, including Alaska. Aid for Women v. Foulston (Kansas) On January 30, the Center for Reproductive Rights heads to trial on behalf of a group of Kansas health-care and counseling professionals challenging a law that seriously threatens the confidentiality of teenagers seeking health-care services and could have huge implications for teenagers across the country. In 2003, Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline issued an opinion interpreting a state child-abuse reporting statute to require doctors, school counselors, and psychotherapists, among others to report all suspected sexually active adolescents under the age of 16 for investigation. The interpretation is so broad that a psychologist would be forced to report her 15-year-old client's make-out session with her 15-year-old boyfriend to child services as evidence of child abuse. Such a policy would breed a culture of distrust and drive young people away from the reproductive and sexual health-care services and information that are crucial to decreasing unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmissible diseases. In October 2004, the Center filed a challenge to this abuse of the law, and obtained a preliminary injunction against implementation of the Attorney General’s interpretation. Press Releases 04/18/06 - Court Sets Precedent, Stopping Kansas Attorney General's Effort to Invade Teen Pregnancy 01/26/06 - Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline's "Kiss and Tell" Law Goes to Trial, January 30 (Media Advisory) 09/08/05 - Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline's "Kiss and Tell" Law goes before Appeals Court 07/26/04 - Judge Blocks Enforcement of Kansas "Kiss and Tell" Law Legal Documents Complaint Preliminary Injunction Memo Preliminary Injunction Related Links What's the Matter with Kansas? Dean Gandy v. Nova Health Systems (Oklahoma) In 2001, the Center filed a challenge to an Oklahoma law that unconstitutionally restricts minors’ ability to seek abortions in Oklahoma. The law also requires that abortion providers assume unlimited responsibility for any post-abortion care medical costs if an abortion is performed on a minor without "parental consent or knowledge." This consent or knowledge requirement is mandatory regardless of whether the minor is emancipated, mature, abused, or in need of emergency medical care. A federal district court judge found the law unconstitutional because it violated U.S. Supreme Court precedents requiring laws that restrict a minor’s access to abortion to include a health exception and a procedure to obtain an abortion without the involvement of a parent. The law was also found to be vague because it neglected to provide doctors with any specific guidelines regarding compliance, thus violating their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. This case is currently on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Fact Sheet Restrictions on Young Women's Access to Abortion Services Womancare of Orlando, Inc. v. Agwunobi (Florida) The Florida Parental Notice of Abortion Act requires a physician to notify one of the parents or the legal guardian of a minor woman before she can obtain an abortion. The Act permits some minors to seek a judicial waiver. Although the United States Constitution permits laws requiring parental notice before a physician may perform an abortion on a minor, it also requires that minors have immediate access to abortion services when necessary to protect their lives or health. In addition, a young woman has the right to avoid parental notice, if she can demonstrate that she is mature or that the abortion would be in her best interests. The Act, however, falls short of these constitutional requirements. The medical emergency provision is a vague requirement that the physician determine that there is "insufficient time" to comply with the notification requirements before providing medical care to a minor who needs an abortion to preserve her life or health. The judicial bypass provision does not provide a venue for minors who do not reside in Florida but seek to obtain an abortion there without parental notification. The case has now been dismissed.
The Center argued that the parental consent law violates adolescents' right to equal protection by requiring parental involvement in abortion decisions, but not in other decisions such as carrying a pregnancy to term. In its decision, the Alaska Supreme Court recognized that giving parents "veto power" over a minor's decision to terminate a pregnancy robs teenage girls of their fundamental rights.
Forty-four states have adopted laws requiring a young woman to obtain the consent of or notify one or both parents prior to an abortion. The Center has challenged such laws in six states, including Alaska.
Aid for Women v. Foulston (Kansas) On January 30, the Center for Reproductive Rights heads to trial on behalf of a group of Kansas health-care and counseling professionals challenging a law that seriously threatens the confidentiality of teenagers seeking health-care services and could have huge implications for teenagers across the country. In 2003, Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline issued an opinion interpreting a state child-abuse reporting statute to require doctors, school counselors, and psychotherapists, among others to report all suspected sexually active adolescents under the age of 16 for investigation. The interpretation is so broad that a psychologist would be forced to report her 15-year-old client's make-out session with her 15-year-old boyfriend to child services as evidence of child abuse. Such a policy would breed a culture of distrust and drive young people away from the reproductive and sexual health-care services and information that are crucial to decreasing unwanted pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmissible diseases. In October 2004, the Center filed a challenge to this abuse of the law, and obtained a preliminary injunction against implementation of the Attorney General’s interpretation. Press Releases 04/18/06 - Court Sets Precedent, Stopping Kansas Attorney General's Effort to Invade Teen Pregnancy 01/26/06 - Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline's "Kiss and Tell" Law Goes to Trial, January 30 (Media Advisory) 09/08/05 - Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline's "Kiss and Tell" Law goes before Appeals Court 07/26/04 - Judge Blocks Enforcement of Kansas "Kiss and Tell" Law Legal Documents Complaint Preliminary Injunction Memo Preliminary Injunction Related Links What's the Matter with Kansas? Dean Gandy v. Nova Health Systems (Oklahoma) In 2001, the Center filed a challenge to an Oklahoma law that unconstitutionally restricts minors’ ability to seek abortions in Oklahoma. The law also requires that abortion providers assume unlimited responsibility for any post-abortion care medical costs if an abortion is performed on a minor without "parental consent or knowledge." This consent or knowledge requirement is mandatory regardless of whether the minor is emancipated, mature, abused, or in need of emergency medical care. A federal district court judge found the law unconstitutional because it violated U.S. Supreme Court precedents requiring laws that restrict a minor’s access to abortion to include a health exception and a procedure to obtain an abortion without the involvement of a parent. The law was also found to be vague because it neglected to provide doctors with any specific guidelines regarding compliance, thus violating their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. This case is currently on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Fact Sheet Restrictions on Young Women's Access to Abortion Services Womancare of Orlando, Inc. v. Agwunobi (Florida) The Florida Parental Notice of Abortion Act requires a physician to notify one of the parents or the legal guardian of a minor woman before she can obtain an abortion. The Act permits some minors to seek a judicial waiver. Although the United States Constitution permits laws requiring parental notice before a physician may perform an abortion on a minor, it also requires that minors have immediate access to abortion services when necessary to protect their lives or health. In addition, a young woman has the right to avoid parental notice, if she can demonstrate that she is mature or that the abortion would be in her best interests. The Act, however, falls short of these constitutional requirements. The medical emergency provision is a vague requirement that the physician determine that there is "insufficient time" to comply with the notification requirements before providing medical care to a minor who needs an abortion to preserve her life or health. The judicial bypass provision does not provide a venue for minors who do not reside in Florida but seek to obtain an abortion there without parental notification. The case has now been dismissed.
Press Releases
Legal Documents
Dean Gandy v. Nova Health Systems (Oklahoma) In 2001, the Center filed a challenge to an Oklahoma law that unconstitutionally restricts minors’ ability to seek abortions in Oklahoma. The law also requires that abortion providers assume unlimited responsibility for any post-abortion care medical costs if an abortion is performed on a minor without "parental consent or knowledge." This consent or knowledge requirement is mandatory regardless of whether the minor is emancipated, mature, abused, or in need of emergency medical care. A federal district court judge found the law unconstitutional because it violated U.S. Supreme Court precedents requiring laws that restrict a minor’s access to abortion to include a health exception and a procedure to obtain an abortion without the involvement of a parent. The law was also found to be vague because it neglected to provide doctors with any specific guidelines regarding compliance, thus violating their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. This case is currently on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Fact Sheet Restrictions on Young Women's Access to Abortion Services Womancare of Orlando, Inc. v. Agwunobi (Florida) The Florida Parental Notice of Abortion Act requires a physician to notify one of the parents or the legal guardian of a minor woman before she can obtain an abortion. The Act permits some minors to seek a judicial waiver. Although the United States Constitution permits laws requiring parental notice before a physician may perform an abortion on a minor, it also requires that minors have immediate access to abortion services when necessary to protect their lives or health. In addition, a young woman has the right to avoid parental notice, if she can demonstrate that she is mature or that the abortion would be in her best interests. The Act, however, falls short of these constitutional requirements. The medical emergency provision is a vague requirement that the physician determine that there is "insufficient time" to comply with the notification requirements before providing medical care to a minor who needs an abortion to preserve her life or health. The judicial bypass provision does not provide a venue for minors who do not reside in Florida but seek to obtain an abortion there without parental notification. The case has now been dismissed.
Womancare of Orlando, Inc. v. Agwunobi (Florida) The Florida Parental Notice of Abortion Act requires a physician to notify one of the parents or the legal guardian of a minor woman before she can obtain an abortion. The Act permits some minors to seek a judicial waiver. Although the United States Constitution permits laws requiring parental notice before a physician may perform an abortion on a minor, it also requires that minors have immediate access to abortion services when necessary to protect their lives or health. In addition, a young woman has the right to avoid parental notice, if she can demonstrate that she is mature or that the abortion would be in her best interests. The Act, however, falls short of these constitutional requirements. The medical emergency provision is a vague requirement that the physician determine that there is "insufficient time" to comply with the notification requirements before providing medical care to a minor who needs an abortion to preserve her life or health. The judicial bypass provision does not provide a venue for minors who do not reside in Florida but seek to obtain an abortion there without parental notification. The case has now been dismissed.
previous