Court Backs Ban on Implementing Teen Abortion Law

An appeals court on Thursday refused to lift a ban on enforcement of a new state law requiring parental consent or court authorization for teen-age abortions.

Rejecting an emergency appeal from state Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, the 1st District Court of Appeal upheld a ruling by a San Francisco Superior Court judge earlier this week blocking enforcement of the law, which was to have taken effect today.

State’s Argument

Lawyers said the appeal court’s failure to lift the ban means it could be another year or longer before a full appeal can be heard.

State officials had argued that blocking enforcement of the law, which requires unmarried pregnant girls under the age of 18 to obtain the consent of either one parent or an order from the Juvenile Court, will violate parental rights and be harmful to the interests of teens who may be unable to make such a decision on their own.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing a coalition of health care organizations, including Planned Parenthood and the California Medical Assn., argued that the law would force teen-agers to unadvisedly delay abortions or resort to dangerous self-induced abortions.

The court’s rejection of the emergency appeal came on a 2-1 vote, with Justices John T. Racanelli and Norman Elkington in the majority.

Justice John W. Holmdahl was of the opinion that the emergency appeal to stay the order should be granted.

Full Trial Required

“Obviously, we’re disappointed in the ruling,” Deputy Atty. Gen. Dennis Eckhart said.

ACLU attorney Linda Shostak said, “Once again, we’re pleased, and we think it’s the right result.”

Shostak said the ruling most likely means the court will hear a full appeal of Superior Court Judge Morton Colvin’s preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law sometime next year.

Colvin would have to conduct a full trial on the issue before making the injunction permanent, and lawyers said such a trial could not be scheduled for at least a year.

In its 16-line order, the appeal court said the state had made no showing that Colvin exceeded his discretion in issuing the enforcement ban.

In his order, Colvin concluded that there was a “reasonable likelihood” that the ACLU would prevail in its claim that the abortion consent law violates California’s constitutional right to privacy and that “irreparable injury” would likely result from failure to halt enforcement of the law pending a hearing on the constitutional issues.