THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, April 30, 1996 TAG: 9604300348
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A6 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: FROM WIRE REPORTS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium: 75 lines
Refusing to reopen the bitter abortion debate, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a state's bid to make it harder for a teenage girl to get an abortion without a parent's permission.
Over the fervent objections of three dissenters, the high court left intact a lower-court decision striking down a 1993 South Dakota law requiring pregnant teenagers or their doctors to notify a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before undergoing abortions.
While the justices did not rule directly on the controversial parental-notice issue, they again demonstrated their deep division over abortion rights and their reluctance to tackle the explosive question again soon.
At the same time, they signaled a willingness to give breathing room to abortion-rights advocates to challenge restrictive state statutes before they actually affect anyone.
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court refused to disturb a federal appeals court's conclusion that the South Dakota law contained a fatal flaw: It failed to give girls a way of bypassing their parents by seeking a judge's consent for an abortion.
South Dakota's statute, which included civil and criminal penalties for physicians who did not require parental notice, apparently was unique. Other state laws requiring parental notice allow an unmarried teenager to go before a judge to show that she is mature enough to make the abortion decision herself or that it is not in her best interest to tell her parents. This is commonly referred to as a ``judicial bypass'' provision.
At least 36 states have laws on the books that require pregnant minors to notify a parent or a judge before they get an abortion.
Monday's Supreme Court action does not affect those laws. South Dakota, by eliminating the girl's option of going to a judge, tried to go one step further. Without the bypass provision, the state law placed a major obstacle in the path of a girl's right to make an abortion decision, the appeals court said.
Dara Klassel, an attorney for Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, fought the parental notification statute.
But James Bopp Jr., lawyer for the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee, said the bypass procedure is ``almost always a rubber stamp'' for abortion.
South Dakota Gov. William Janklow said it ``makes no sense'' for state law to require girls to get a parent's permission before getting her ears pierced but not before getting an abortion.
The justices have not delved into the issue of a woman's right to choose abortion since 1992, when they reaffirmed the constitutional right of women to terminate early pregnancies by a 5-4 vote in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Janklow came within one vote of persuading the Supreme Court to hear his arguments. Four votes are required to grant review, but only three justices - Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - voted to hear the case. MEMO: This story was compiled from reports by Knight-Ridder News Service, The
Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.
ILLUSTRATION: IN VIRGINIA
Both houses of the Virginia General Assembly passed a parental
notification law this year, but each was killed before lawmakers
adjourned for the year. The issue is a recurring one in the
Assembly, passing twice, only to be vetoed by the governor.
All the notification laws advanced in Virginia recently would
have let judges waive the notification requirement.
KEYWORDS: SUPREME COURT ABORTION PARENTAL NOTIFICATION by CNB