Abortion Ruling on Minors Will Not Be Appealed

In a surprise action, the state attorney general’s office said Monday it will not challenge an appeals court decision preventing enforcement of a state law requiring unmarried minors to get parental or judicial consent for an abortion.

In a terse announcement, Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp’s office said that in the “best interests of the state” the ruling will not be appealed to the state Supreme Court. Instead, it said, the issue will be returned to San Francisco Superior Court for a trial.

The state’s decision not to appeal means that it could be months or even years before the law could take effect, provided its legality is eventually upheld in court.

The unexpected move came in one of the two highly charged legal disputes that have emerged in the California courts after last July’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court giving states more leeway in regulating abortion. The other case, pending before the state Supreme Court, tests the state’s right to deny Medi-Cal funded abortions to low-income women.

Under the consent law, unmarried minors--those 17 or under--must obtain the approval of a parent, guardian or judge for an abortion unless there is a medical emergency.

The measure was passed by the Legislature in 1987 but was quickly challenged by opponents before it could take effect. In December of that year, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Morton R. Colvin issued a preliminary injunction barring implementation of the law pending trial. The judge concluded that the challengers were likely to prevail in their claims that the statute violated the state Constitution.

Van de Kamp, named as a defendant because of his role as the state’s chief lawyer, appealed the injunction, contending that the law is constitutional and urging that it be allowed to take effect pending trial. But on Oct. 12, a state Court of Appeal upheld the injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs in the suit had offered considerable evidence that the statute is unconstitutional.

It had been widely expected that the attorney general would take the issue to the state Supreme Court. But in Monday’s brief announcement, made by an assistant to Van de Kamp, the state said it will await a trial instead.

“Rather than petition the Supreme Court to hear the case at this stage, we have concluded that the best interests of the state will be served by developing a full evidentiary record,” said Chief Assistant Atty. Gen. Richard Martland.

He noted that the Court of Appeal, at this stage of the proceedings, had considered only the evidence presented by the challengers to the law. At trial, he said, the state’s position could be presented in more detail.

Van de Kamp, a candidate for governor, has said that he is personally opposed to abortion but has publicly supported a woman’s right to an abortion.

An anti-abortion movement leader denounced the attorney general’s action, noting that it will result in a lengthy delay before the law could take effect.

“This has been in the courts for nearly two years already, and now we’re going back to lowest level in the court system,” said Janet B. Carroll, legislative director for the California Pro-Life Council. “We believe this frustrates the will of the 80% of the people who favor parental consent laws.

The action, however, was welcomed as “entirely appropriate” by Dorothy Ehrlich, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, whose attorneys represent opponents of the law in their suit against state officials.