
DATE: Tuesday, October 21, 1997             TAG: 9710210281

SECTION: FRONT                   PAGE: A1   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS 

DATELINE: WASHINGTON                        LENGTH:  100 lines

SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ORDER ENFORCEMENT OF LA. ABORTION LAW

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to reinstate a Louisiana parental-consent law struck down as an undue interference with young girls' abortion rights.

The court, by an 8-1 vote, let stand rulings that said the never-enforced 1995 law would make it too difficult for some under 18 to obtain abortions without having a parent's permission.

Those rulings were made by lower federal courts that said the law gave trial judges discretion to prevent young women from getting abortions.

Justice Antonin Scalia voted to hear the state's appeal and consider reinstating the invalidated law.

The justices' decision not to hear Louisiana's appeal will not directly affect a recently enacted Virginia law requiring minors to notify at least one parent before obtaining an abortion.

The issue of judicial discretion is also central to a legal challenge filed against the Virginia law by Planned Parenthood.

Louisiana's law, now permanently struck down, decreed that judges ``may '' waive the consent requirement for mature minors. It has since been changed to say judges ``shall'' waive the consent requirement for mature minors.

Virginia's law, now in effect, says judges ``may'' waive the notification requirement if they find that a minor is mature. Planned Parenthood contends - as did those who challenged the Louisiana law - that the statute should use the word ``shall'' instead.

``What the Supreme Court did (Monday) is good for us in Virginia because precedent now is that you have to say `shall.' You can't say `may,' '' said Simon Heller, a lawyer for the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights Policy who is working on the case.

But Heller's side also got some bad news Monday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced that it had voted, 7-5, to uphold a stay on an order that tried to prevent Virginia's parental notification law from going into effect last July 1.

That order, issued by U.S. District Judge James C. Turk, was overturned June 30 by 4th Circuit Judge J. Michael Luttig. Planned Parenthood had asked the full 4th Circuit to override Luttig, but on Monday, the court declined to do so.

The 4th Circuit's next move will be to consider the constitutionality of Virginia's law in light of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Parental notification and consent laws were deemed constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992, ``provided that there is an adequate judicial bypass procedure.''

Such a procedure allows judges to act to permit abortions for those deemed mature enough to decide on their own or when telling a parent would not be in a minor's best interests.

Louisiana's law, giving judges discretion to prevent abortions even in cases in which a girl's maturity or best interests are argued and proved in her favor, was enacted in 1995. Abortion providers immediately challenged the statute, and a federal trial judge barred its enforcement.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 3-0 to uphold the enforcement ban, ruling last April that the law unconstitutionally imposed an ``undue burden'' on minors' abortion rights.

``Louisiana stands alone on this front,'' the appeals court said. ``As far as we are aware, every state with a parental consent or notification statute has used the mandatory `shall' language in their bypass schemes.''

It added: ``The plain language of (the state law) states that juvenile court judges within Louisiana have the discretion to deny an abortion to a minor even though the minor demonstrates that she is mature . . . or that the abortion would be in her best interest.''

Such a result, the 5th Circuit court said, ``flies in the face'' of past Supreme Court rulings.

The appeals court also ruled that contacting parents of girls who contend that an abortion is in their best interests violates the anonymity requirements past Supreme Court rulings impose for such proceedings.

In the appeal acted on Monday, Louisiana Attorney General Richard Ieyoub argued that the dispute ``cuts to the core of this nation's ability to protect the welfare of children.'' ILLUSTRATION: Graphic

IN VIRGINIA

Virginia's law, which took effect July 1, says judges ``may''

waive the parental notification requirement if they find that a

minor seeking an abortion is mature. Planned Parenthood contends -

as did those who challenged the Louisiana law - that the statute

should use the word ``shall'' instead.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided Monday to

let Virginia's law continue to be enforced, will have to consider

the law in light of Monday's U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Graphic

OTHER ACTIONS

In other matters Monday, the Supreme Court: