If the child had come into the health center seeking other medical attention - say for a sprained ankle; would the health department have notified the parents?

Once again, the gov't gradually taking over the parents' responsibilities.

Geez Terry, I don't see it that way at all. Maybe if the parents had lived up to their responsiblity the kid wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. Maybe the kid didn't want to talk to her parents before going in for a reason.

My guess is going to the clinic alone was NOT easy. The kid was probably terrified.

Bad things happen at that age, things kids wish they could tell their parents about but don't. I remember doing some not-so-smart things as a teenager and I guarantee you my parents will never find out.

Sounds like another case of uninvolved or intentional oblivious parents. Note that had the teenager not thrown up the pills she voluntarily requested and voluntarily swallowed the parents would still be clueless to the reality in which their daughter lives. I don’t see were the government had anything to do with this. Good for the courts for putting the responsibility where it should be.

"The parents brought suit, alleging that the city of Philadelphia had violated their constitutional rights of parental guidance by not notifying them about the pills. The girl also claimed that her constitutional rights of bodily integrity and religious freedom were violated by the health care worker."
That has to be the dumbest thing I've heard all week. I don't remember the words "parental guidance" in the Constitution, and I sure don't see how religion was even a factor in this.

Planned parenthood works.

just a note to nisleib - i wholeheartedly agree that if her parents were doing their job she would have come to them first, but i do want to note that in response to your statement "Maybe the kid wouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place," that she wasn't pregnant. Emergency Contraception prevents pregnancy/prevents a fertilized egg from embedding in the uterus wall. Emergency Contraception is not an abortifacient.

That being said, it's sad that there are litigious people like these parents who are looking for any reason to sue an entity. It just means that well intentioned and much needed government programs will discontinue valuable services, for fear of retribution from crazies.

we have laws to protect children - laws that are based on the assumption that children have not reached the age of reason. 16 year olds can't but alcohol, smoke, enter into a contract etc. because they are children.

but suddenly when it comes to abortion and parental rights the child is now a well informed member of society ready to make huge decisions like this w/o any parental input?

the courts opinion said
" It is equally unsurprising that she did so without pausing to consult or advise her parents. "

Really? the court is not surprised that the child did not tell her parents that she was being given a medical treatment w/o their permission?

This is implying that the court is not surprised that the child did not tell her parents that she was pregnant?

What would surprise the court I would ask?

Planned parenthood works.

Posted by: Aurora supports clinic | September 21, 2007 4:26 PM
BTW
Aurora supports clinic-

No it doesn't. Otherwise the clinic would not have had to try to sneak into the community under false pretenses..

This has got to be the scariest thing I've read today, and that includes all the hysteria dished out by Raving Left wing Loons:

"a three-judge panel of the court of appeals agreed, saying parents had no constitutional right to be notified about their minor child’s contraception decision."

Parents have NO constitutional right to be notified about their child?

You Loons can bitch and moan about freedoms lost under the Patriot Act, but this ruling makes any of those concerns, legit or not, look as inconsequential as possible. Parents have no rights over the kids? Now that is scary!

Per John D:

Parents have NO constitutional right to be notified about their child?

===

I'll go way out on a limb here, John D, and submit that you fancy yourself a "strict constructionist" in the mode of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Assuming that to be the case, perhaps you might point out what language in the text of the Constitution confers the right that you describe. And don't tell me about no stinkin' penumbra.

Tina:

I agree with you that the suit was dumb, but not for quite the same reasons you might think.

You see, the United States Supreme Court determined some years ago that parents have a constitutional right to determine how their children are reared and educated. Two cases, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), said so.

But having a right to parental control doesn’t mean that every state institution has a duty to tell parents what their children are doing. No case construing the Constitution has ever said, so. The only time a plaintiff has won a case claiming State interference with their parental rights is where the State has affirmatively directed or prohibited conduct that involves parental control – like forcing all children to attend public schools or prohibiting the teaching of a foreign language.

Furthermore, it has always been a matter of State regulation to determine whether there is any duty on the part of a health care clinic to inform a child’s parents. If Pennsylvania has no such law, then the parents have nothing to complain about. Even if Pennsylvania did have such a law, the failure to notify the parents doesn’t rise to the level of a “constitutional” infringement. Parental notification laws may be consistent with the right to an abortion. That is all the U.S. Supreme Court has ever said. But saying notification laws are consistent with the right to an abortion or contraception is not the same as saying they are constitutionally required. Thus, failure to abide by a notification law is, at best, a violation of State law. But a violation of State law, by itself, does not give federal courts the power to hear and determine a case in a manner consistent with Article III of the Constitution.

Thus, the judge correctly tossed the parents’ claims.

As for the girl’s complaint, it was plainly stupid. One of the older maxims of law is that one is not harmed by that to which he/she consents. She sought the relief the public health clinic offered. She was not compelled to do so. In fact, she made an affirmative election not to contact her parents before accepting the pills given to her. As such, she cannot complain that the health clinic did exactly as she requested. To allow a suit like that would only encourage chicanery.

The claims based on religion were premise on the ground that her use of contraceptives violated her religious beliefs. The problem with that complaint is that she violated her own religious beliefs – sinned as it were – by taking the contraceptive pills. In fact, she “sinned” in the conduct which was the occasion for her trip to the clinic. For the same reasons as above, she has no ground to complain about the harm she caused herself.

I don't blame the posters here who can't understand what the parent's claim actually was.

Because the reporter didn't bother to link to the text of the opinion, didn't bother to link to the parent's arguments or present their arguments in their own words, and didn't bother to talk to the parents or their attorneys.

Blinkin, I know as a lefty you have that reading and comprehension problem, but it was PER ME that parents have no constitutional right to be notified about their child, but PER THE JUDICIAL RULING. Sorry, but for a court to rule that parents have no rights over their children is ridiculous and I would think unconstitutional, regardless of what John W says.
But it doesn't surprise me that the Left hails this ruling as the Left wants children under an all-powerful governmental system.

As a parent, and a Man, I would only hope that my daughter would have the courage enough to seek help.

Constitutionally she has a right to do just that and no one can take that from her. So the courts didn't either, thats a good thing.

A man doesn't have that constitutional option, He is it!

John D:

I understood you perfectly well. You're upset that the Court refused to recognize a right that you seem to think exists. I asked you, a "strict constructionist," to point out where in the text of the Constitution one might find such a right. And of course you have no answer because the Constitution says nothing of the sort.

My point, quite simply, is that supposed "strict constructionists" like you are phonies. You're a strict constructionist when a Court "creates" the right to privacy (thus abortion, contraception, sodomy, etc.), but you're quite a bit more expansive when it's you who wants the Court to identify a right that is not expressed in the text.

Please just remember this the next time you rip on a Court for protecting a right that you don't like.

Blinkin, in the past, the courts have ruled that parents are liable for their children. Parents are responsible for their children. Also, where does the constitution say parents have no rights over their kids?
Anyway, to prove you wrong, here is a link:

http://www.oceanetwork.org/currents/Court.pdf

If the girl would have had to use a coathanger, who would the parent's sue then?

We need to have millions and millions more abortions every year.

Let's face it; fetuses are simply delicious. Tender and juicy. They're a valuable form of cheap, yet tender meat. Veal is tough in comparison! Since Republicans are opposed to birth control, we can simply eat their excess littermates and everyone will be happy!

(Note to Tribsters...please read 'A Modest Proposal' by Jonathan Swift)

Boy this a win/win/win situation. The pregnant teenager, out of an undoubtebly right to life reichswing family, gets to have her unwanted baby at a very young age. A sure winner that one is!
She gets to blame the pill suppliers as violating her bodily integrity and religious freedom teaching her sanctimony. An absolute must for an religious life such as it is...
And as icing on the cake she gets to browbeat the very agency that tried to help her.
Than there is john d. who is worried about the ignorant parents who are not properly informed about the sexual proclivity of their daughter. A heavy hitter on the Fox reality show he is!
Yowsa

John D asks:

"Also, where does the constitution say parents have no rights over their kids?"

That's not the question. Read John W.'s analysis above: it's up to the State to decide whether to have a parental notification law, and if the State fails to do so the parents cannot claim their due process rights were violated.

The broader point is more fun here. You're not a strict constructionist. The Constitution says nothing whatsoever about marriage, or child bearing, or child rearing. Yet you have no problem citing cases like Pierce and Meyer, in which the Court basically does nothing more than declare the existence of these rights.

I thought that's what Dear Leader would all "legislatin' from the binch."

So are you for that or against it? I'm starting to wonder.

John D:

I hope you don’t think I make this stuff up as I go. What I wrote above is not my opinion. It is the prevailing view among the federal circuit courts. I simply choose not to give you all the cites and details to save a little space.

Contrary to a blinkin’s view, you are not wrong in saying that parents have a fundamental, constitutional right to decide how children are raised, nurtured and educated. The cases I cited above (Mayer and Pierce) say so. In the present case, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia wasn’t trying to say that parents don’t have the right to control the rearing of their children either. They obviously couldn’t say that.

What they said, instead, is that a non-mandatory services from a health clinic during which a minor is furnished with contraceptives doesn’t infringe upon the right of a parent to control the upbringing of their child. The question is not the existence or non-existence of a right, but rather whether certain government conduct infringes a right.

One of the first case to come up with the reasoning used by the Third Circuit was a Sixth Circuit case called Doe v. Irwin, 615 F.2d 1162 (6th Cir. 1980) (Hereafter "Irwin. In that case, the plaintiffs attempted to enjoin a publicly operated clinic’s practice of distributing contraceptive devices to children. The clinic was not inside a school or other building where the parents were required by law to send their children. Nor were the minors participation sought or solicited. (See Id. at 1163.) The parents, as in this case, claimed the distribution of contraceptives to minors without notice to the parents violated the parents’ constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals disagreed. It observed that the Meyer, Pierce and Yoder (cf. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)) line of cases, unlike the one before it, all involved some form of governmental action that either required or prohibited certain activity in a manner that interfered with the parents’ judgment regarding their children. (Id. at 1168.) This distinction, to the Sixth Circuit, was critical. In large part, because the clinic “imposed no compulsory requirements or prohibitions which affect rights of the plaintiffs,” the Court concluded the “plaintiffs remain free to exercise their traditional care, custody and

control over their unemancipated children. . . . ,” and found “no deprivation of the liberty interest of parents in the practice of not notifying them of their children's voluntary decisions to participate in the activities of the Center.” (Ibid.)

Another factor that worked into the Irwin decision is the fact that it was questionable whether a notification was required because minors have an independent constitutional right to privacy concerning contraception. (See Irwin, 615 F.2d at 1166 [“Though the state has somewhat broader authority to regulate the conduct of children than that of adults, minors do possess a constitutionally protected right of privacy.”]. Subsequent to Irwin the United States Supreme Court reinforced this point, stating “the right to privacy in connection with decisions affecting procreation extends to minors as well as adults.” (See Carey v. Population Services, International, 431 U.S. 678, 693 (1977); and Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 74 (1976) [In accord].) Thus, not only is a failure to notify not a violation of parents’ constitutional right to control the upbringing of their children, the actual notification might violate the minor’s right to privacy.

So why do I go on about Irwin and these other cases? Simple. The Third Circuit in Anspach v. City of Philadelphia, et al. (which is the case we are talking about here) followed the reasoning of Irwin to the letter. It cited Doe at length with glowing approval. And this was not really unexpected. The Third Circuit followed the reasoning of Irwin in the prior case of Parents United for Better Sch. Inc. v. Sch. Dist. of Pa. Bd. of Educ., 148 F.3d 260, 276 (3d Cir. 1998).) In other words, the Irwin rule was already “law of the Circuit” before the Anspachs filed this suit.

Based on Irwin, the Court of Appeals said that failure to notify the parents did not infringe their constitutional right to decide how their child would be reared and educated. The minor voluntarily went to the clinic, at which time there was no coercion or pressure upon the child to accept or use the “day after pills.” The Court also observed, that “‘[a]lthough the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause affords protection against unwarranted government interference . . . , it does not confer an entitlement to such [governmental aid] as may be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom.’” (Citing Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 317-318 (1980).)

I don’t suppose it would surprise you, but the Third Circuit disposed of the rest of the case just like I had described in my prior post, above.

a blinkin:

"Strict constructionists" are not phonies. Justice Scalia is a strict constructionist. He will be happy to tell you that where the language is plain and its meaning clear, there is no legitimate reason to extend the meaning of the text beyond its words.

But even strict constructionists recognize that not all the Constitution is susceptible of such a black and white reading. There are a lot of "fudge" words in the Constitution that are incapable of content or definition outside of a particular context. Examples of this include phrases like "due process," "cruel and unusual," “just” and "unreasonable." As to these words, even strict constructionists will admit that history, context and usage, rather than content, determine meaning.

And, no, it is not inconsistent with the notion of "strict construction" to find meaning not explicitly stated in the text, if the language is one of those "fudge" words or phrases, and the history provides a rational basis to include a right within its meaning. After all, the Ninth Amendment explicitly states that rights not enumerated in the text are not to be disparaged or denied by virtue of their omission. The clear implication is that there are un-enumerated rights that are fundamental to society and secured by the Constitution. After all, the Constitution didn’t create any rights. It only purports to protect rights that already exist. The same U.S. Supreme Court, in the early days, used both strict construction and the history/context/usage test to find the existence of rights that had little or no direct textual support.

As such, a strict constructionist’s objection to recognition of certain constitutional rights is not invariably based on the lack of textual support. More often, the objection is based on a total lack of support for it in the historical record of usage and practice. At other times, it is because the so-called “right” was, at common law, recognized as a crime instead of a right or privilege.

This is where the dispute lies. Those who are not strict constructionists deny that they are tied to history, context or practice in determining the scope of constitutional protections. They choose, rather, to believe that the Constitution “evolves” to meet the needs of a changing society, thereby making current context and “justice” considerations that trump history, context and usage. Strict constructionists view this as the “blank check” school of constitutional interpretation, because it empties the Constitution of its meaning and provides no basis for rationally limiting the scope of a right.

Consequently, contrary to your assertion, it is neither contradictory nor intellectually dishonest to oppose the recognition of some un-enumerated rights, while favoring the recognition of others. It is just the consequence of having some ambiguities in the text.

Nisleb,

PArents didn't do their job - correct.

How about comparing that to where the child drank too much and went to the health department? Would the health department contact the parents?

My point is not about abortion, but about the rights of the parents. It seems abortion and birth control are the only medical procedures on a minor that don't need parental permission.

John W:

I must disagree. It strikes me that searching through history to identify unenumerated rights is exactly what a strict constructionist would oppose. I'm not suggesting that it's wrong for the Court to consider history and rights understood to exist as of 1789. I'm only saying that doing so is antithetical to the concept of strict construction. After all, if the framers had intended there to be a right to marriage, they could have said so expressly. Their decision not to express such a right can easily be construed to mean they intended to exclude it.

I simply find it ironic that people who decry "judicial activism" when the Cour identifies an unexpressed right to abortion have no trouble with the Court identifying an unexpressed right to marriage. One can certainly argue that either is a good or bad idea, but one cannot argue is that his position is based on a strict construction of the text.

Seems to me that the 9th Amendment lays farce to "strict constructionism." After all, as John W pointed out, to paraphrase it states that the rights expressly laid out in the Constitution are not meant to be the only rights granted by the Constitution.

So how can one argue, as a "strict constructionist" does, that ony the rights enumerated in the Constitution are actually rights. I see the 9th Amendment as giving life to the "living document" theory, as society evolves, new and broader truths and rights become self-evident.

John W., thanks for your comments. Clearly, you know of what you speak.
Clearly, and of course no surprise, blinkin doesn't know what he speaks.

[quote]
here is a link:

http://www.oceanetwork.org/currents/Court.pdf

Posted by: John D | September 21, 2007 9:35 PM
[/quote]

WOW! John D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", ACTUALLY POSTS A LINK TO BACK UP HIS OPINION ON SOMETHING!

Thank goodness I was sitting down and had smelling salts nearby. I just witnessed a real miracle!

The next time an obviously teenage mother is seen standing in a shopping center holding up a cardboard sign asking to be given food I'll meditate on the anti-birth control comments above.

a blinkin:

A real “strict constructionist” doesn't always strictly construe the Constitution against liberty. As originally envisioned by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (who were both strict constructionists), the Constitution was supposed to be construed against granting the federal government too much power, and construed in favor of a State’s powers versus the federal government’s, as well as in favor of the liberty interest of the individual against state and federal power. That is, in essence, what the 9th and 10th Amendments were meant to accomplish. 9th Amendment = human, social and civil rights are not limited to the textual enumeration. 10th Amendment = governmental powers are limited to those delegated by the words of the Constitution.

If what you are talking about is the way the term “strict construction” is used today, that is another matter. Some of what passes for “strict construction” today is often neither “strict” nor “construction.” It is, instead, a proxy for hostility toward individual liberty and/or a favorable attitude toward government control. But strict construction has nothing to do with attitudes, and everything to do with the meaning of words.

Correctly understood, “strict construction” only means that one must derive the meaning of the constitution from the fair import of the words employed to frame it, and that enlarged or unnatural meanings not contemplated by either the words or the intent of the framers must be rejected. In determining the meaning, however, the words must be first consulted. If the words themselves supply the meaning, that’s the end of the inquiry. It is only when some ambiguity arises, that resort to history is not only permissible but necessary to determine what the drafters intended. Furthermore, it is legitimate to keep in mind the purpose of the Constitution – as one establishing a “limited” government designed to protect the safety and liberty of the people – in determining the scope of its reach. That, again, involves the principles in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Thus, a judge reading the “due process” clause (for example) has to look at the meaning of that word in the context of history, inasmuch as the phrase itself does not convey, and has never conveyed, one single meaning for all situations. Instead, the phrase “due process” contains the gloss of centuries of judicial use and legislative history from the signing of the Magna Charta in 1215 until the present date. That gloss gives some idea of what procedures are and aren’t “process” that is “due” under various circumstances. Similarly, the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment” carries with it the gloss of history from the adoption of the English Bill of Rights of 1688 when the term was first coined. As far as the Ninth Amendment is concerned, it begs judges to determine whether there were rights historically considered fundamental to society which just never made it into the list of enumerated rights protected by the Constitution.

The resort to history and context, as such, has the virtue of supplying some lasting and consistent meaning to the Constitution. It is, furthermore, real meaning because the framers of the constitution had certain historical meaning in mind when they wrote it.

So, I stand on my prior statement. A (real rather than ersatz) “strict constructionist” can in fact look to history and practice to determine meanings. This is not judicial activism because it is not attempting to enlarge the meaning, or apply a gloss to words in the constitution, in a manner not intended by the framers.

This sounds like a sting operation on the part of the antiabortionist crowd - trying to get Roe vs Wade overturned by chipping away at it in the lower courts. No one says whether the girl was actually pregnant or what happened to the pregnancy. Why would she be named as a co-complainant? This is just one more Rovian-deviate right wing charade.

Eve:

She was named as a plaintiff because her parents filed suit; that. and th fact she complained of a violation of her religious rights.

The Justices who made this ruling are pro-abortion in liberal code: baby killers.
Of course a 16 year old must have parental consent but, then Planned Parenthood is a fraudulent organization that uses $300 million in federal and state funds while keeping their 501{c} 3 status as a charitable organization. Problem is abortion isn't health care.
They snuck around in Aurora using a/ka's before announcing a grand opening to abort babies--here in Springfield they hold a Kentucky Derby party to fund their baby killing each year. Drinking mint julips and wearing big hats won't overcome the mortal sin of just one abortion.Stop Planned Parenthood Now! Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Why is it always, always MEN who are arguing over what we women may or may not do with our bodies...?

Tell ya what, MEN, when YOU can get pregnant and have babies - YOU can decide. Otherwise, just shut up.

Leftside Annie -

if you think abortion should be legal then would you agree with

...being ready to abandon the right of the mother to sue for child support. She made the choice to bring the child into the world, not the man.

.... being ready to legalize prostitution and drug use. If it's a woman's (or man's) body to choose to do with it as they please, then abolish those laws.

.... being ready to file only one count of homicide against a defendant when a pregnant woman is murdered.

.... being ready to abandon the right to prosecute a woman who does harm to her fetus by participating in excessive drug and/or achohol use.