Question: 1. Case Name: American Academy Of Pediatrics V. Lungren, 16 Cal. 4th 313 (1997) 2. Facts And Procedural Background: In 1953 The California Legislature Adopted A Law Authorizing A Minor To Consent To Medical Care Related To Her Pregnancy, Without The Need For Parental Consent. In 1987 The California Legislature Passed A New Law, AB 2274, Which Amended …

1. Case Name:

American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal. 4th 313(1997)

2. Facts and Procedural Background:

In 1953 the California legislature adopted a law authorizing aminor to consent to medical care related to her pregnancy, withoutthe need for parental consent. In 1987 the California Legislaturepassed a new law, AB 2274, which amended the earlier law. The newlaw requires a pregnant minor to secure parental consent before shemay access an abortion. If the parents refuse to consent, or theminor elects not to ask for consent, the minor may seek permissionfrom the court through a “judicial bypass” process by which theminor petitions the court to determine whether the minor is“sufficiently mature” to make the decision on her own, or if not,if an abortion is in the best interest of the minor. The law neverwent into effect because the implementation was stayed or preventedby lower courts. Both the trial court and the Court of Appealconcluded that the law was unconstitutional. Plaintiffs contend thestatute violates the right of privacy provided for in theCalifornia Constitution and sought an injunction to prevent itsimplementation.

3. Question:

Presented Does AB 2274 violate the right of privacy provided forin the California Constitution?

4. Holding:

Yes, AB 2274 violates the right of privacy provided for in theCalifornia Constitution

5. Reasoning:

The California Constitution provides privacy protections broaderthan those recognized by the federal constitution. The CaliforniaConstitution explicitly recognizes the right to privacy. AB 2274intrudes on a privacy interest. The privacy interest protected bythe California Constitution includes a pregnant woman’s right tochoose whether or not to continue her pregnancy. This decisioninvolves the preservation of her personal health, personal controlover her own body and the interest to decide for herself whether toparent a child. The Court cited a previous CA Supreme Court opinionnothing that “this right of personal choice is central to a woman’scontrol not only of her own body, but also to the control of hersocial role and personal destiny.” The Court found that thisconstitutional right to privacy applies to minors. Given the rightto privacy, the Court analyzed whether AB 2274 serves a compellingstate interest that justifies the intrusion of privacy. Thegovernment argued that AB 2274 furthers a compelling interest bythe government to protect the health of minors and to preserve andfoster the parent-child relationship. The Court found that, whilethe interests of the government are compelling, AB 2274 impedesrather than furthers those interests. The government’s argumentthat AB 2274 is needed to protect the health of minors isundermined by other California laws which authorize a minor toobtain other medical care—of equal or greater risks to the minor’swell-being as compared to abortion– without parental consent. AB2274 may also incentivize minors who are reluctant to speak withtheir parents or a judge about their pregnancy to obtain aback-alley abortion or postpone needed pre-natal care. The Courtalso found that AB 2274 could hinder the parent-child relationshipbecause minors who do not want to consult their parents may havegood reason to fear that informing them will result in harm of theminor. Finally, the Court found that the judicial bypass procedurewill not further the state’s interests. The Court found thatjudicial bypass is likely to delay the minor’s access to amedically safe abortion, and that some minors will be toofrightened or ashamed to go to court and may instead resort to aback-alley abortion.

6. Disposition:

The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeal,upholding the judgment of the trial court.

–> Do you agree with the court’s reasoning in the caseAmerican Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997), as outlined inSection #5 of the case brief (on the handout)? Why or why not?There are no right or wrong answers, only well-justified responsesthat are at least a paragraph in length.

–> How would you apply the court’s reasoning in AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics v. Lungren to a case where a court was askedto determine whether a minor has the right to give up their ownchild to an adoption agency, without their parents’ consent? Is thecase about abortion the same as or distinct from the case aboutadoption? Remember there are no right or wrong answers, onlywell-justified responses that are at least a paragraph in length.The goal is to make an argument and justify it.