Justices Uphold Parent-Consent Law on Abortion

The Supreme Court on Monday let stand a state law that requires a pregnant teen-ager to gain the consent of both parents or a judge before she has an abortion.

Without comment or dissent, the justices refused to hear an appeal from abortion rights attorneys who said that the Mississippi law puts “an undue burden” on the constitutional rights of women under age 18.

Because the court did not explain itself, the significance of the action is not clear. Nonetheless, by clearing away the last legal challenges to the Mississippi law, the justices went slightly further than before in permitting state officials to restrict abortion for minors.

“They have never been particularly protective of young women’s rights,” said Catherine Albisa, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy who represented the three Mississippi abortion clinics that challenged the law.

State lawmakers said, however, that parent-consent laws are needed to make certain that troubled young women consider all the options before choosing an abortion.

In past rulings, a majority of justices approved laws requiring pregnant teen-agers to notify both parents, as long as a judge could waive the requirement if the abortion was considered in the child’s “best interest.” In other cases, a separate majority concluded that states could require minors to gain the consent of one parent.

Recently the high court has steered clear of abortion disputes, apparently content to let the states begin the enforcement of limited restrictions.

In the 1992 case of Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, the justices upheld the basic right of a woman to choose abortion but also said that states could limit the practice somewhat, especially if the restrictions were intended to help patients make a more informed choice.

If the restrictions went too far and put an “undue burden” on the woman’s freedom, the law would be struck down, the court said in a 5-4 opinion.

Since then, however, the justices have refused to spell out the difference between a reasonable restriction and an unduly burdensome one.

The Mississippi law was passed in 1986 but took effect only in July after it won approval from a U.S. appeals court in New Orleans. The law will help “protect children from their own immaturity and naivete,” wrote Judge Edith Jones, who was considered for the Supreme Court by President George Bush.

Two other states--Massachusetts and North Dakota--also enforce laws requiring pregnant minors to get their parents’ consent before obtaining an abortion.

An official of the National Right to Life Committee said that Monday’s court action was no surprise and reflects the understanding that the abortion rights of minors can be restricted more than the rights of adult women.

“I think the court has been quite consistent in (permitting laws requiring) parental consent,” said Burke Balch, state legislative director for the committee. “The frustrating thing is that the other side has been so successful in reopening questions and in delaying the implementation.”

But Balch does not believe the states can go much further in restricting abortion. “Our central effort is to get the states to enforce the laws that have already been upheld. We’re not going to be breaking much new ground,” he said.

The Mississippi law says that a doctor must get written permission from both parents before performing an abortion on a single woman under age 18. The consent of only one parent is sufficient if the parents are divorced, if the other parent cannot be reached within “a reasonable time,” or when incest may have caused the pregnancy.

The consent requirement can be waived in a medical emergency or by a state judge who concludes that the minor is “mature” and that an abortion would be in her “best interest.”

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the clinic’s lawyers said that most pregnant teen-agers are likely to consult their parents but that the state law “distorts, devalues and usurps” this normal process by forcing it upon troubled families.

But in a one-line order, the justices dismissed the case (Barnes vs. Mississippi, 93-314).

In a second abortion case, the justices also refused to hear an appeal from a Kansas woman who was convicted of trespassing at a Wichita abortion clinic.

The case of Elizabeth Tilson had gained attention when a state judge ruled that her conviction must be dismissed because she acted out of “necessity” to save unborn children. But the Kansas Supreme Court quickly overruled that decision and said that individuals can act out of necessity to stop illegal actions but not to stop legal ones such as abortion.

Without comment, the high court turned down her appeal of the case (Tilson vs. Wichita, 93-467).

Meanwhile, the justices refused to consider a screenwriter’s attack on how the motion picture industry resolves disputes over screenwriting credits (Marino vs. Writer’s Guild of American, 93-509).

Nick Marino wrote a screenplay for “Godfather III,” but Paramount Pictures chose not to use it. Later, director Francis Ford Coppola and author Mario Puzo co-wrote a screenplay that was used in the movie.

Marino sought a writing credit, but an arbitration panel rejected his claim and awarded the credit to Coppola and Puzo.

In his lawsuit, Marino challenged the arbitration system as fundamentally unfair but his claim was rejected by a federal judge in Los Angeles and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a brief order, the court dismissed his appeal.

* RELATED STORY: D2