Amicus Curiae Brief — Hodgson v. Minnesota

Supreme Court brief1990

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

1? ‘ Supreme Court, U.S.

‘ FILED

Nos. 88-1125, 88-1309 i OCT 10 rage |

JOSEPH F. SPA WOL, JR.

CLEKA

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United

OCTOBER TERM, 1989

JANE Hopeson, M.D., et ai.,

Petitioners, Cross-Respondents,

STATE OF MINNESOTA, et al.,

Resondents, Cross-Petitioners.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals -

for the Eighth Circuit

BRIEF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF

AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS (AAPS)

AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF

STATE OF MINNESOTA

Of Counsel: CLARKE D. FORSYTHE *

KENT MASTERSON BROWN =LEANNE McCoy

1114 First National Bldg. AMERICANS UNITED FOR LIFE

167 West Main Street LEGAL DEFENSE FUND (AUL)

Lexington, KY 40507 343 S. Dearborn Street +1804

(606) 233-7879 Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 786-9494

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

October 10, 1989 * Counsel of Record

eee Sd

WILSON - Eres PRINTING Co., Inc. - 789-0096 - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

II.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I CD crrirerneitnecrsecceciersnccsecscessnseneczees

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE .....................

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................ccsceseceesseecesseee

IE cba ictnstasb pietneridrntnciviintiniriatinnreninciansnnnenece

I. THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA HAVE A

COMPELLING INTEREST IN HELPING

PARENTS AND FAMILIES TO REDUCE

TEENAGE PREGNANCY AND TEENAGE

EE tabccnttlatinmcincctsstintiinianinndinmnnnnnneees

A. Although Many States Have Enacted Pa-

rental Consent and Notice Laws, Minnesota

Is Unique in Having Had A Parental Law

in Effect Which Can Be Evaluated Through

Demographic Data Collected By the Depart-

ge ;

B. The Plaintiff Clinics Have Failed To Show

the Notice Law Adversely Impacts the

Health of Teens, Adversely Impacts the In-

tegrity of the Family, or Fails to Be Con-

sistent With Parents’ Rights to Rear and

Counsel Their Children ....................................

WHILE THE MINNESOTA PARENTAL NO-

TICE OF ABORTION LAW WAS IN EFFECT

AND ENFORCED, TEENAGE ABORTION

AND PREGNANCY DECLINED SUBSTAN-

TIALLY AND TEENAGE BIRTHS DID NOT

GENERALLY INCREASE COMPARED TO

PE PED scecenceivenennncsnintiennnntaremenscemmeen

A. During the Four Years that the Notice Law

Was In Effect, Teenage Pregnancies, Abor-

tions, and Births Declined Substantially .......

a idsiaabbonionin

2. Abortions

38. Births

Page

~> wo ee

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

B. During the Four Years that the Notice Law

Was In Effect, Teenage Pregnancy, Abor-

tion, and Birth Rates Declined Substantially.. 17

1. Pregnancy Rate for 10-17 Year Olds.......... 17

2. Pregnancy Rate for 18-19 Year Old3.......... 18

8. Abortion Rate for 10-17 Year Olds............. 18

4. “Abortion Rate-for 18-19 Year Olds............. 18

5. Birth Rate for 10-17 Year Olds................... 19

6. Birth Rate for 18-19 Year Olds................... 19

C. The Data Are Strong Evidence that the No-

tice Law Effectively Reduced Teen Preg-

nancy Rates in Minnesota During Its Effec-

a 20

D. Minnesota Teenagers Did Not Have Abor-

tions at Significantly Later Points in Preg-

nancy Relative to Other Age Groups While

the Notice Law Was in Effect 21

E. Minnesota Teenagers Did Not Have In-

creased Complications From Induced Abor-

tion Relative to Other Age Groups While

the Notice Law Was in Effect 23

Ill. THE CONTENTION THAT THE NOTICE

LAW INCREASED BIRTHS TO TEENS IS

BASED ON STATISTICS FOR ONLY THE

LIMITED AREA OF THE MINNEAPOLIS

CITY LIMITS AND THESE MUST BE

VIEWED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF

OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC PHENOMENA IN

MINNEAPOLIS AND THROUGHOUT THE

CONCLUSION .......20<-0:0.c0-csscsscssecssosescssssssossnseeasssseesssnneeneans 29

ili

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

APPENDICES:

APPENDIX 1: State Reporting Requirements and

Parental Consent and Notice of Abortion Statutes...

TABLE 1: Abortions, Births, and Pregnancies: 1973-

LEE

FIGURE 1a: Abortions, Births, and Pregnancies,

FIGURE 1b: Abortions, Births, and Pregnancies,

Ages 18-19: 1973-1986...

FIGURE lc: Abortions, Births, and Pregnancies,

Ages 20-24: 1973-1986...

FIGURE 1d: Abortions, Births, and Pregnancies,

I ceecsmeecemsnnnenenes

TABLE 2: Abortion, Birth, and Pregnancy Rates:

1973-1986.................. aeeneieasineaneintstieinesiatetnegeemenmen

FIGURE 2a: Abortion, Births, and Pregnancy Rates,

FIGURE 2b: Abortion, Birth, and Pregnancy Rates,

FIGURE 2c: Abortion, Birth, and Pregnancy Rates,

Cee

FIGURE 2d: Abortion, Birth, and Pregnancy Rates,

TABLE 8: Number and Percentage of Abortions with

Gestation Age [greater than] 12 Weeks: 1975-

i eseeeenerernereanes

FIGURE 38a: Number of Abortions with Gestation

Age [greater than] 12 Weeks: 1975-1986...

FIGURE 3b: Percentage of Abortions with Gestation

Age [greater than] 12 Weeks: 1975-1986...

TABLE 4: Number and Percentage of Abortions with

Reported Medical Complications: 1975-1986 .............

FIGURE 4a: Number of Abortions with Reported

Medical Complications: 1975-1986 ..00000000000

Page

lla

13a

l4a

15a

16a

17a

19a

20a

2la

22a

TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

FIGURE 4b: Percentage of Abortions with Reported

Medical Complications: 1975-1986 —..........................

TABLE 5: Birth Rate for Different Regions of Min-

eens CEG ccitarisstiensintisintimcaniaemmenns

FIGURE 5a: Birth Rate for Different Regions of

Minnesota, Ages 15-17: 1973-1987 ,

FIGURE 5b: Birth Rate for Different Regions of

Minnesota, Ages 10-14: 1973-1987 _.............................

FIGURE 5c: Birth Rate for Different Regions of Min-

nesota, Ages 18-19: 1973-1987 ............. sibiciieniateadiieenlianan

FIGURE 5d: Birth Rate for Different Regions of Min-

nesota, Ages 20-24: 1973-1987 .....................................

FIGURE 5e: Birth Rate for Different Regions of Min-

nesota, Ages 25-54: 1973-1987 ......................-c0s-s0------++

TABLE 6: Birth Rate for Minneapolis Residents by

Age Group: 1976-1987 ..........

FIGURE 6: Birth Rate for Minneapolis Residents by

gn) SEE

TABLE 7: Births to Mothers [less than] 18 years of

Age as Percentage of Total Births: 1970-1987 .......

FIGURE 7a: Births to Mothers [less than] 18 Years

of age as Percentage of Total Births, Minneapolis,

Minnesota, and U.S.: 1970-1987 .........................-----.....

FIGURE 7b: Births to Mothers [less than] 18 Years

of Age as Percentage of Total Births, by Race/Eth-

nicity, Minneapolis and U.S.: 1970-1987 .................

TABLE 8: Percent Racial/Ethnic Enrollment, Min-

neapolis Public School District: 1971-1987 ...............

FIGURE 8: Percent Racial/Ethnic Enrollment, Min-

neapolis Public School District: 1971-1987 ...............

4la

43a

44a

45a

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979)

Bowen v. Kendrick, 108 S.Ct. 2562 (1988)...

Herbst v. Daley, No. 84 C 5602 (N.D. Ill. July 1,

SESE ERR re ye = Ses i

H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981)

Hodgson v. Minnesota, 648 F.Supp. 756 (D.Minn.

1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 13383 (1987)...

Hodgson v. Minnesota, 853 F.2d 1452 (8th Cir.

1988), cert. granted, 109 S.Ct. 3240 (1989)...

Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476

IIIT soceschanssbicthsseniestenigiabinmsiadiaaneliidied ihtactiale teat

Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52

ee Rr ae ae

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)...

South Dakota v. Dole, 107 S.Ct. 2793 (1987)

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109

FET Ae Ae eC

STATUTES

Minn. Stat. Ann. sec. 144.343(2)-(7) (West

UTE chsesbiinsthadinsninissasiinid :

Minn. Stat. Ann. sec. 145.413 (West 1989)

Minn. Stat. Ann. sec. 645.451 (West 1989)

N.D. Cent. Code sec. 14-02.1-03.1 (Supp. 1987).

23 U.S.C. 158 (1982 ed. and Supp. III) ...............

MISCELLANEOUS

Blum, et al., The Impact of a Parental Notifica-

tion Law on Adolescent Abortion Decision-

Making, 77 Am. J. Pub. Health 619 (1987)...

Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Academy of

Medical Ethics in Support of Cross-Petitioners

in Hodgson v. Minnesota, No. 88-1125, 88-1309.

Brief of Certain American State Legislators in

Support of Appellants in Webster v. Reproduc-

tive Health Services, Inc., No. 88-605 _........

Cartoof & Klerman, Parental Consent for Abor-

tion: Impact of the Massachusetts Law, 76 Am.

J. Pub. Health 397 (1986) .......

6, 11

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued

Centers for Disease Control, Abortion Statistics

U.S., 1984-1985 (1989) ...

Gardner, Scherer, & Tester, Asserting Scientific

Authority: Cognitive Development and Adoles-

cent Legal Rights, Am. Psychologist 895 (June

1989)

Henshaw, et al., A Portrait of American Women

Who Obtain Abortions, 17 Fam. Plan. Persp. 90

0 ee eee

Henshaw & O’Reilly, Characteristics of Abortion

Patients in the United States 1979-1980, 1& Fam.

Plan. Persp. 5 (1983) -............. Siniiiais

Russo, Adolescent Abortion: The Epidemiological

Contezt, in G. Melton, ed., Adolescent Abortion:

Psychological & Legal Issues 40 (1986) ...............

Smith, et al., An Assessment of the Incidence of

Maternal Mortality in the United States, 74 Am.

J. Pub. Health 780 (1984) ...

South Dakota Vital Statistics (1982-1987)..............

Teen Pregnancy: What is Being Done? A State by

State Look, A Report of the House Select Com-

mittee on Children, Youth and Families, 99tin

Cong. 2d Sess. (Dec. 1986) ....................-...-.....-..--

Torres, et al., Telling Parents: Clinic Policies and

Adolescents’ Use of Family Planning and Abor-

tion Services, 12 Fam. Plan. Persp. 284 (1980)..

Page

6,7

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1989

Nos. 88-1125, 88-1309

JANE Hopeson, M.D.., et al.,

Petitioners, Cross-Respondents,

Vv.

STATE OF MINNESOTA, et al.,

Resondents, Cross-Petitioners.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Eighth Circuit

BRIEF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF

AMERICAN PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS (AAPS)

AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF

STATE OF MINNESOTA

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE*

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons,

Inc. (AAPS), a not-for-profit corporation, is the largest

association of private practicing physicians in the United

States. AAPS is comprised of active, practicing physi-

cians and osteopaths of all specialties, from every state

and territory in the United States and the District of

*This brief is filed with the written consent of the parties,

copies of which have been filed with the Clerk of this Court.

Columbia. One purpose of the AAPS is to protect and

preserve the private practice of medicine in all of its

aspects. AAPS supports the right of patients, both adults

and minors, to be provided full and accurate medical in-

formation with which to render informed decisions per-

taining to their medical treatment. The AAPS recog-

nizes the importance of involving parents in the medical

treatment of minors, particularly in the provision of

surgical procedures. Many of the members of the AAPS

are pediatricians and obstetricians /gynecologists who rou-

tinely provide medical services to minors. In addition,

many AAPS members are family practitioners whose

practices involve working with the family, as a unit, in

the provision of medical treatment. For these reasons,

the issues involved in this case are of acute interest to

the Association.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In this challenge to the Minnesota parental notice of

abortion law, as applied, Minnesota abortion clinics and

physicians have launched a selective attack to overturn

this Court’s decisions in H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398

(1981), Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979), and

Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (1983),

as well as the constitutional principle that parents have

fundamental rights to rear and raise their minor daugh-

ters in the area of abortion decision-making. The clinics’

record in this case focuses exclusively on a minute sub-

section of Minnesota teens—those who sought elective

abortions through judicial bypass—constituting only 25%

of all pregnant teens and never more than .34% of the

entire population of Minnesota teens aged 10-17. The

clinics attempt to establish the unremarkable proposition

that parents and teenagers do not always see eye to eye

on teens’ activities, that some parents may be abusive,

that parents may react with grief, fear, or anger when

they suddenly discover that their minor, unwed daughter

is unexpectedly pregnant, and that this discovery may

not improve but may harm the parent-teen relationship.

The record contains several stories of sad and unfortunate

relations between parents and their children. But these

conflicts are part and parcel of the parent-child relation-

ship throughout history, and, as part of that relationship,

have defined parental authority throughout Anglo-

American law. In this sense, adolescent pregnancy is no

different than many other serious, adverse events in the

lives of teenagers and their families—for example, drug

abuse, juvenile delinquency, or failure in school. It is in

these very circumstances that parental authority is de-

fined by the law’s reaffirmation and support.

If the~clinics could show that the notice law resulted

in tangible threats to the health of minors generally in

Minnesota—above and beyond that normally posed by

pregnancy and elective abortion themselves—that .:.inors

suffered increased abuse from parents, that physicians

were prevented from providing prenatal care, or that

minors were denied prenatal care, it would then be plau-

sible for the clinics to claim that the notice law was not

reasonably related to preserving parental authority or

adolescent health. But this is not the case that the clinics

have made.

Part of the impact of the notice law that the clinics

have either selectively ignored, misconstrued, or incom-

pletely presented is revealed through the official demo-

graphic data of the Minnesota Department of Health on

adolescent pregnancy, abortion, and childbirth. These

data show that teenage pregnancy, abortion, and birth

rates declined markedly between 1980-1986; teens who

decided to abort were not unusually delayed from having

abortions until later times of pregnancy that might in-

crease the risk of abortion; and complications from abor-

tions performed on teens did not increase relative to

other age groups. In addition, a comparison of the preg-

nancy, abortion, and birth rates provides strong support

for the conclusion that the notice law effectively caused a

decrease in the pregnancy rate. Between 1980-1986, the

birth rate throughout Minnesota fell 12.5% for 10-17

year olds and 28.4% for 18-19 year olds, the abortion

rate fell 27.4% for 10-17 year olds and 20.7 % for 18-19

year olds, and the pregnancy rate fell 20.5% for 10-17

year olds and 25.4% for 18-19 year olds. Since it seems

undisputed that the notice law directly decreased abor-

tion rates, while birth rates simultaneously decreased,

this strongly suggests that the law decreased abortion

rates by affecting pregnancy rates. This supports the

conclusion that the notice law in fact changed adolescent

behavior. These data indicate that the notice law is rea-

sonably related to Minnesota’s compelling interest in pre-

serving parental authority and adolescent health.

ARGUMENT

I. THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA HAVE A COM-

PELLING INTEREST IN HELPING PARENTS AND

FAMILIES TO REDUCE TEENAGE PREGNANCY

AND TEENAGE ABORTION.

This Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113

(1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S.

52 (1976), established a constitutional right to elective

abortion for adolescent girls of any age that minors had

not exercised at any time in the preceding history of

this country. See Brief Amicus Curiae of the American

Academy of Medical Ethics in Support of Cross-Petitioners

in Hodgson v. Minnesota, No. 88-1125, 88-1309 at 2-23;

Brief of Certain American State Legislators in Support

of Appellants in Webster v. Reproductive Health Serv-

ices, Inc., No. 88-605. In the aftermath of those decisions,

parents and public officials in every state have sought to

adjust public policy on health care to take account of this

new constitutional right while preserving other compel-

ling, traditional social values. This Court has recently

held that government has a “legitimate secular purpose”’

in reducing “the social and economic problems caused by

teenage sexuality, pregnancy, and parenthood.” Bo

, , ; wen

v. Kendrick, 108 S.Ct. 2562, 2571 (1988).

In 1985, approximately 26.3% of elective abortions

were performed on minors age 18 or younger. Centers

for Disease Control, Abortion Statistics U.S., 1984-1985

(1989) (Table 1.). More than 40 percent of all teen-

agers who have known pregnancies obtain abortions.

Henshaw, et al., A Portrait of American Women Who

Obtain Abortions, 17 Fam. Plan. Persp. 90, 93 (1985);

Russo, Adolescent Abortion: The Epidemiological Con-

text, in G. Melton, ed., Adolescent Abortion: Psychologi-

cal & Legal Issues 40, 49 (1986). In 1986, in Minnesota

approximately 49.3% of pregnancies for teens, age 10-

17, ended in elective abortion. Table 1, infra. Nearly

eighty percent (78%) of all abortions performed on teen-

agers are done in abortion clinics. Henshaw & O'Reilly

Characteristics of Abortion Patients in the United States

1979-1980, 15 Fam. Plan. Persp. 5, 11 (1983). One study

found that less than half of the abortion clinics require

parental notice, even for teenagers 15 years of age or

younger; even fewer require parental notification before

performing abortions on minors age 16 or older. Torres

et al., Telling Parents: Clinic Policies and Adolescents’

Use of Family Planning and Abortion Services, 12 Fam

Plan. Persp. 284, 285 (1980) (Table 1). Yet. in this

study of 1,170 unmarried teenage abortion ‘patients

[n]inety-one percent were living with their parents four

percent were living with relatives... .” Id. at 287,

A. Although Many States Have Enacted Parental Con-

sent and Notice Laws, Minnesota Is Unique in

Having Had A Parental Law In Effect Which Can

Be Evaluated Through Demographic Data Collected

By the Department of Health.

The States have sought to address the problem of teen-

age pregnancy and abortion in many different ways.

They have instituted scores of public programs, includ-

ing family planning programs, adoption services, child

care, school-based educational programs, and maternal

and child health care programs. See Teen Pregnancy:

What is being Done? A State by State Look, A Report

of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth and

Families, 99th Cong. 2d Sess. 56 & Appendix IV (Dec.

1986) [hereinafter Teen Pregnancy]. The States stress

parental involvement in many of these programs. /d. at

67-70.

Over 30 states, including Minnesota, have passed pa-

rental consent or notice legislation in order to protect

the health of minors and to protect parental authority in

the area of adolescent health decisionmaking. See Appen-

dix 1 to this Brief. As this Court has said, “parental con-

sent and notice are qualifications that typically may be

imposed by the State on a minor’s right to make im-

portant decisions.” Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 640

(1979) (plurality op.). Because this Court’s decisions in

Roe v. Wade and Danforth constitutionalized this area of

the law, states can ensure parental involvement only

through positive legislation.

Very few of these state parental consent and notice

statutes have been allowed to go into effect for any mean-

ingful period of time. Many have been declared uncon-

stitutional by federal courts. Statutes in almost a dozen

states are currently enjoined in the midst of pending liti-

gation. See Appendix 1. As the district court below ac-

knowledged, it was the first district court “ever to ex-

amine a parental notification or consent substitute stat-

ute in actual operation.” Hodgson v. Minnesota, 648

F.Supp. 756, 774 (D.Minn. 1986). And there is no other

currently pending litigation in this country that is exam-

ining the effect of parental notice or consent legislation

as applied.

Determining the effect of these parental laws has also

been frustrated by the absence of state or federal laws

wer oes

requiring the reporting of statistical data. Data collected

from reporting provide demographic statistics that are

critical for the study of maternal morbidity and mortal-

ity. See e.g., Teen Pregnancy at 1-19; Smith, et al., An

Assessment of the Incidence of Maternal Mortality in the

United States, 74 Am. J. Pub. Health 780 (1984). “No

federal laws require reporting for abortion.” Teen Preg-

nancy at 5. State reporting requirements for abortion

are in effect in less than thirty states. Appendix 1. Many

states do not have reporting for a wide array of demo-

graphic factors. Teen Pregnancy at 1-19. Many states

do not, or cannot, require mandatory reporting of abor-

tion statistics. Illinois, for example, has been prohibited

by court order from collecting abortion data since 1984.

Herbst v. Daley, No. 84 C 5602 (N.D.IIl. July 1, 1984).

Reporting requirements are essential to determine the

complete effect of these laws. Minnesota is virtually

unique in having had a parental notice law and reporting

statute in effect simultaneously for a meaningful period

of time.

B. The Plaintiff Clinics Have Failed To Show That

the Notice Law Adversely Impacts the Health of

Teens, Adversely Impacts the Integrity of the Fam-

ily, or Fails to Be Consistent With Parents’ Rights

to Rear and Counsel Their Children.

The clinics’ attack on the Minnesota law falls into two

broad categories: (1) testimony concerning various bur-

dens imposed on pregnant teens by the notification re-

quirement and the bypass procedure; (2) testimony ques-

tioning the necessity and effectiveness of the notification

requirement and bypass procedure in furthering the stat-

utory purposes of protecting parental authority and ado-

lescent health. The clinics, and their amicus, contend that

minors of any age are no less mature and no less capable

of making important decisions than their adult parents.’

1The American Psychological Association (APA), which has

filed an amicus curiae brief in this case in support of Hodgson,

The clinics’ claim that the notice law had an adverse

effect on minors in Minnesota is exclusively focused on

those minors who sought abortions. The clinics’ challenge

reflects a narrow, distorted focus on the impact of the

notice law. Minors who sought abortions through the by-

pass procedure between 1981-1984 constitute less than

25% (23.5%) of the total number-of minors (aged 10-

17) who became pregnant. Cf. Table 1-2, J.A. 60. The

clinics’ case focuses on only half of the pregnant teens in

Minnesota, and that half amounts to only .30% of all

Minnesota teens aged 10-17 who were under the influence

of the law. Cf. J.A. 60, Tables 1-2. The clinics’ case

thus virtually ignored the impact on the half of the teens

who became pregnant and did not abort in Minnesota

(and their parents). And the clinics’ record says nothing

about the drop in the pregnancy rate and how the notice

law influenced teens who did not become pregnant. It is,

therefore, wholly inaccurate for the clinics to claim that

their witnesses had “first-hand knowledge of nearly 100%

of the minors who were affected by the statute.” Pet.Br.

has recently been criticized for filing briefs in this Court which

overstate the extent to which “developmental theory and data con-

firm that adolescents and adults have equivalent decision-making

capacities.” Gardner, et al., Asserting Scientific Authority: Cog-

nitive Development and Adolescent Legal Rights, American Psy-

chologist 895 (June 1989). One of the Plaintiffs’ experis, Lenore

Walker, expounded this theory at trial and contributed to the APA

brief. APA Brief at n.2.

2The 23.5% figure is derived from the estimated number of

pregnancies in the 10-17 age group between August 1, 1981 and

December 31, 1984 (10,872) compared with the stipulated number

of bypass petitions filed during that same period (2,552). J.A. 60.

(The 10,872 figure uses 5 mos. of the total number of pregnancies

(3,714) in the 10-17 age group in Minnesota in 1981.) See Tables

1-2. It appears that 49.6% of the teens that aborted between Aug.

1, 1981 and December 31, 1984 sought judicial bypass. This is

based on a comparison of the total of approximately 5,149 abor-

tions for that time period for the 10-17 age group (5 mos. of 1981

total) with the stipulation of 2,552 bypass petitions in that period

(J.A. 60).

at 29. By their challenge, the clinics would strip all

Minnesota parents of the statutory protection of their

constitutional rights, as well as all minors of the influence

of the law in ensuring parental guidance, in order to re-

move the requirement of judicial bypass from .30% of

Minnesota teens.

There is little, if any, evidence in the record on the

experience of the 50% of the pregnant teens, aged 10-17

(or their families), who did not abort—no testimony

from those teens or their parents (either custodial or

non-custodial) or their doctors, no medical evidence of

their pregnancy or current condition, no evidence of their

experience in giving birth or caring for their newborn

children, no evidence of their past history or future plans

or aspirations, no evidence that any minor who carried

her child to term later regretted it.

Even the experience of the 50% of the pregnant teens

who aborted is presented in the record almost exclusively

through the eyes of third parties (not parents)—abor-

tion clinic personnel, court or administrative personnel,

or experts apparently experienced with only teens who

aborted.* These teens are “represented” only by three

single mothers of pregnant daughters and eight teens as

’ The following are the Plaintiffs’ witnesses, excluding some of

the named Plaintiffs: Paul Wendt, Meadowbrook Clinic; Allen

Oleisky, judge, Stanley Henshaw, statistician; Henry Albrecht,

juvenile court judge; Edwin G. Widseth, asst. county atty.; Susanne

Smith, supervisor, GAD program; Kathrine Welsh, Women’s Health

Center; Cynthia Daly, asst. public defender; Dr. Lenore Walker,

psychologist; Gerald Martin, judge; Charlotte Baker, Midwest

Health Center; Maria Honkala, medical asst.; Thomas P. Webber,

Planned Parenthood administrator; Heather Sweetland, asst. public

defender; Laura Hunter, abortion clinic counselor; Elissa Benedek,

psychiatrist; William Sweeney, county judicial officer; Gary B.

Melton, psychologist; George Petersen, district judge; Paul Garrity,

judge; Steven Butzer, psychiatrist; Neil Riley, judge; Edward

Ehlinger, health department administrator; Henry David, Trans.

Family Research Inst.; Dr. Arthur Horwitz, Meadowbrook clinic.

named plaintiffs. Pet. Br. at 23 n.49. The experience of

certain minors who were deposed is characteristic of the

lifestyle of many teens, but there is no evidence that

the notice law seriously exacerbated the parent-teen rela-

tionship for these teens or for any significant number of

Minnesota teens. Most of the Plaintiffs’ experts relied on

“studies” and “the “literature’”—none of which seem to

involve Minnesota youth. District Court Transcript (T.)

1137, 1146. The exception seems to be Steven Butzer,

who cited two cases of Minnesota adolescents he had

counseled, but his experience seems to have been only

with girls who sought abortion. J.A. 296-300. There is

apparently no evidence of even a single report of child

abuse caused by the parental notification, or a single re-

port of medical complications caused by the law, or a

single case of parental prevention or coercion of an abor-

tion. Cross Petitioners’ Brief (Cross Pet.Br.) at 10-11, 18.

The data collected by the Department of Health tell a

broader public health story—not only about those teens

who aborted (.60% in 1982) but also about those who

never got pregnant (98.7%) and those who carried their

children to term (.66%); and it is a story different from

the one that the clinics present. The data collected and

reported by Minnesota are unique in what they can tell

public health researchers about the effect of the notice

law. This analysis of the Department’s data demon-

strates that the notice law is reasonably related to pro-

tecting parents’ constitutional rights and protecting the

health of minors, because it requires parental notice with-

out causing any increased health problems for minors

and, in fact, possibly decreases adolescent pregnancy and

abortion rates without causing increased birth rates.

This is an extraordinary benefit for teens and their fam-

ilies in Minnesota—an impact which the clinics virtually

ignored,

Il. WHILE THE MINNESOTA PARENTAL NOTICE OF

ABORTION LAW WAS IN EFFECT AND EN-

FORCED, TEENAGE ABORTION AND PREG-

NANCY DECLINED SUBSTANTIALLY AND TEEN-

AGE BIRTHS DID NOT GENERALLY INCREASE

COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEARS.

The Minnesota notice law was only in effect from

August 1, 1981 through March 2, 1986, when a prelim-

inary injunction was entered against the entire statute,

_ followed by a permanent injunction on November 6, 1986.

Minn. Stat. Ann. 144.343(2)-(7) (West 1989) ; Hodgson

v. Minnesota, 648 F.Supp. 756, 760, 781 (D.Minn. 1986),

cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 1333 (1987); Hodgson v. Minne-

sota, 853 F.2d 1452, 1455 (8th Cir. 1988) ; Cross Pet. Br.

at 10. That injunction continued in effect throughout the

appellate review. After the court of appeals en bane re-

versed the district court’s decision on August 8, 1988 and

upheld the notice law, the Eighth Circuit issued an order

on October 7, 1988, staying the issuance of its mandate

pending the filing of a writ of certiorari, or until such

time as this Court acted on the petition for certiorari.

That stay continues in effect.

During the time that the notice law was in effect, the

Minnesota Department of Health, Center for Health Sta-

tistics (the Department) collected demographic data from

Minnesota abortion providers under mandatory statutory

reporting requirements. Minn. Stat. Ann. 145.413 (West

1989) ; T. 2069, 2076-79 (Dr. Paul Gunderson). The De-

partment began to collect data in 1973. T. 2072. The

data collected included :

* the number of teenage pregnancies, abortions, and

births,

* complications incurred by teenagers during abor-

tion, and

* the gestational age at which the abortion was

performed.

The data relied upon in this brief are the Department’s

official data. As it has to other researchers (T. 660),

the Department provided official data through computer

disks and data tables on incidence and population in age

specific groupings appropriate for an evaluation of the

law—10-17 years, 18-19 years, 20-24 years, 25-54 years.‘

The surveillance of abortion data by the Department be-

gins with age 10. T. 2082. And the Department collects

abortion data using a category of 17 years and under.

Defendants’ Exhibit (D. Exh.) 35; J.A. 481. Official

population estimates were also provided by the Depart-

ment because this analysis was conducted prior to the

1990 census.

In this analysis, it was assumed that any change in the

incidence of pregnancy, abortion, and childbirth because

of the notice law would most heavily fall on teens 17 and

below, who were directly affected by the notice law

(Minn.Stat.Ann. 645.451 (West 1989)); less heavily on

teens age 18-19 who would have recently been subject to

the law; somewhat less on women age 20-24; and least

on women age 25-54.° The notice law itself does not de-

fine “minor” by age, and thus it is quite possible that

there was some confusion as to who, among 17-19 year

olds, was covered by the law. Moreover, some teens who

gave birth at 18 might have been 17 at the time they

became pregnant and thus were directly affected by the

law. Those who were 18 or 19 in 1983-1986 were sub-

ject to the law in 1981 (as, for example, Francis H. (J.A.

68-69) ), and the group as a whole could reasonably have

been influenced by the law through socialization, includ-

*The data presented in this brief do not include either teens

or adults whose ages were unknown or non-Minnesota residents.

5 Plaintiffs’ witness, Stanley Henshaw, of the Alan Guttmacher

Institute, also distinguished between teens age 17 and below and

teens age 18-19. J.A. 98. The Director of the Minnesota Center

for Health Statistics, Dr. Paul Gunderson, also relied on a category

of “17 and below” because the Center collects data for this cate-

gory. D. Exh. 35; T. 2082-84, 2101-2102, 2104,

ing schooling and peer contacts. Similarly, some in the

20-24 age group in later years would have been subject

to the law in the earlier years of its enforcement. Women

age 25-54 would never have been personally affected by

the law. For these reasons, these four groups were con-

sidered separately.

This brief presents and analyzes the number and rates

of adolescent pregnancies, abortions, and births in Minne-

sota between 1975 and 1986, the last year for which com-

plete statistics were available. In addition, the study

examines the impact of the notice law on medical com-

plications and gestational age at the time of abortion.

The examination of rates allows for and takes into ac-

count adjustments for changes in the population of Min-

nesota. The brief also examines the impact on all of

these phenomena among women age 25-54, in order to

assess law-specific and general population effects. Figures

and Tables noted hereafter are included in the Appendix

to this Brief.

A. During the Four Years that the Notice Law Was

In Effect, Teenage Pregnancies, Abortions, and

Births Declined Substantially.

1. Pregnancies"

The Department’s official data show that pregnancies

for Minnesota teens, age 10-17, declined between 1981-

1986, while the notice law was in effect. Table 1 and

Figure la show that the number of pregnancies rose

from 3,958 in.1975 to 4,315 in 1980 and then decreased

to a low of 2,987 in 1983 and to 3,133 in 1986. Thus, the

number of pregnancies in this age group grew by 9.0%

* At the time of trial in 1986, the State only presented data for

years 1980-1983 (D. Exh. 35; J.A. 481) and Planned Parenthood

had only data up to 1982 and not beyond. T. 660-61.

7 Pregnancies equal the sum of abortions, live births, and fetal

deaths.

between 1975 and 1980 and fell by 27.4% from 1980 to

1986. In this age group, the highest number of adolescent

pregnancies occurred in the year before the notice law

went into effect.

Table 1 and Figure 1b show that the number of preg-

nancies for the 18-19 age group increased from 6,494 in

1975 to a high of 8,301 in 1980 and then declined to a

low of 5,493 in 1986. The number of pregnancies in this

age group increased by 27.8% between 1975 and 1980

and fell by 33.8% from 1980-1986.

Table 1 and Figure 1c show that the number of preg-

nancies for the age group 20-24 increased between 1975

and 1980 from 22,001 to 28,093 and then declined be-

tween 1980 to 1986 from 28,093 to 22,792—almost to the

1975 figure.

Table 1 and Figure 1d figures show that pregnancies

for the 25-54 age group increased between 1975 and

1980 but then continued to increase between 1980 to their

highest level in 1986. This group would be the least

likely to be affected by the notice law, and the figures

show that, in fact, pregnancies in this age group con-

tinued to rise throughout the effective period of the notice

law.

2. Abortions

The Department’s data also show that abortions for

teenagers, aged 10-17, declined between 1980 and 1986,

while the notice law was in effect. Table 1 and Figure la

show that abortions in this age group rose from 1,597 in

1975 to a high of 2,327 in 1980, the year before the notice

law took effect, and then fell to a low of 1,395 in 1984

before rising to 1,545 in 1986. Abortions for this age

group increased 54.4% from 1975 through 1980 and fell

by 33.6% from 1980 to 1986.

For the 18-19 age group, abortions grew markedly be-

tween 1975 and 1980 before decreasing between 1980-

1986. Table 1 and Figure 1b show that abortions for this

age group rose substantially from 1,758 in 1975 to a high

of 3,380 in 1980, the year before the notice law took ef-

fect, and then fell to a low of 2,372 in 1986. Abortions

thus rose 92.3% between 1975 and 1980, before falling

29.8% between 1980 and 1986.

In the 20-24 age group, Table 1 and Figure 1c show

that abortions grew 124.1% from 2,702 to 6,054 between

1975 and 1980, the last year before enforcement of the

notice law, and then remained relatively stable between

1980 and 1986, falling 5.5%.

For the 25-54 age group, abortions did not decline be-

tween 1980 and 1986, as Table 1 and Figure 1d show.

Abortions in this age group increased 179.3% from

2,161 in 1975 to a high of 6,035 in 1986. Abortions thus

rose 118.2% between 1975 and 1980 and rose 28.0%

between 1980 and 1986.

3. Births

The Department’s data show that births for teens age

10-17 declined while the notice law was in effect. In the

10-17 age group, as Table 1 and Figure la show, the

number of births fell from 2,427 in 1975 to 1,974 in 1980,

but continued to decline between 1980-1986, to 1,573 in

1986. Births for teens age 10-17 thus dropped by 18.7%

from 1975 to 1980 but dropped 20.3% from 1980 to 1986.

For the 18-19 age group, Table 1 shows that births rose

from 4,693 in 1975 to a high of 4,883 in 1980, the year

before the notice law went into effect, and then declined

to a low of 3,096 in 1986. For this age group, births in-

creased by 4.0% from 1975 to 1980, but decreased by

36.6% from 1980 to 1986. In reviewing this age group,

it must be remembered that some girls who became preg-

nant at 17 would give birth after they were 18. Thus,

some girls who gave birth while they were 18 may well

have been influenced by the law.

In the 20-24 age group, as Table 1 and Figure 1c show,

births increased 14.4% from 1975-1980 but then de-

clined 22.6% between 1980-1986, from 21,899 to 16,959.

In the 25-54 age group, as Figure 1d shows, births in-

creased from 1975-1980, increased slightly between 1980-

1982, and continued to increase 1982-1986. Births rose

from 28,746 in 1975 to a high of 42,269 in 1986.

4. Migration

Migration out of Minnesota for abortions was appar-

ently not conducted on any significant scale. Four states

border Minnesota: North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa,

and Wisconsin. North Dakota has had a parental consent

law in effect since at least 1981. N.D. Cent. Code 14-

02.1-03.1 (1981 & 1989 Supp.).* South Dakota reports

5, 19, 20, 30, 20, and 17 abortions performed on Minne-

sota teen residents, 19 years and under, during 1981

through 1986, respectively. South Dakota Vital Statistics

(1982-1987). Iowa has no parental or reporting law in

effect. Wisconsin had no mandated reporting before 1987.

One researcher, Robert Blum, concluded that “[i]n con-

tradistinction to the Massachusetts data, there is little

evidence to indicate large numbers of Minnesota youth

are leaving the state for abortion. ...” Blum, et al., The

Impact of a Parental Notification Law on Adolescent

Abortion Decision-Making, 77 Am. J. Pub. Health 619,

620 (1987).

One study by Cartoof and Klerman purported to find

significant migration out of Massachusetts in their study

of the impact of the Massachusetts parental consent law.

Cartoof & Klerman, Parental Consent for Abortion: Im-

pact of the Massachusetts Law, 76 Am. J. Pub. Health

397 (1986). Nevertheless, as in the case where migration

occurs between states with differences in the drinking age

® Stanley Henshaw suggested that there was migration to North

Dakota based merely on the fact that a clinic opened up in Fargo

in 1981. J.A. 99-101; Henshaw T. at 32. But he then chose to

exclude North Dakota from his regional assessment of birth rates

because of its parental consent law. Henshaw T. at 29-40.

a a ee

for teenagers, the solution to migration is not to abolish

the public health standards of stricter states but to

strengthen the standards in the more permissive states.

Cf. South Dakota v. Dole, 107 S.Ct. 2793 (1987); 23

U.S.C. 158 (1982 ed. and Supp. III). Regardless of the

Massachusetts scenario, however, the facts indicate that

Minnesota’s experience is different. Massachusetts is geo-

graphically a small state bordered by several other states

without parental involvement legislation that may be more

easily reached by car or public transportation (e.g.,

Maine, New York). Thus, the conclusions of Cartoof and

Klerman simply do not apply to Minnesota.

B. During the Four Years that the Notice Law Was

In Effect, Teenage Pregnancy, Abortion, and Birth

Rates Declined Substantially.

Because raw figures do not take account of possible

changes in Minnesota’s population for a particular age

group from year to year, rates for pregnancies, abortions,

and births were also calculated based on the Department’s

data. Rates, in this study, equal the occurrence (inci-

dence) of a phenomenon per 1000 females. Cf. T. 664-65.

The numerator is the number reflecting the phenomenon

for females in that age category; the denominator is the

population number for females in that age category (in

thousands). The data in this brief rely on the Depart-

ment’s data for the entire population of Minnesota, not

just on a sample. Table 2 contains rates for abortion,

births and pregnancy for the various age groups between

1975-1986.

1. Pregnancy Rate for 10-17 Year Olds

The pregnancy rate equals the number of pregnancies

in the particular age group divided by the population of

females in that age group in thousands (pregnancies/

population). Table 2 and Figure 2a show that the preg-

nancy rate for the 10-17 age group rose from 12.7 (12.7

per 1000) in 1975 to a high of 15.6 in 1980, the year

before the notice law took effect, and then declined to

a low of 11.3 in 1983 and 12.4 in 1986. Thus, even though

the population of 10-17 year olds declined between 1975

and 1986, the pregnancy rate declined, as well, by 20.5%

between 1980-1986.

2. Pregnancy Rate for 18-19 Year Olds

Table 2 and Figure 2b show that the pregnancy rate

for the 18-19 age group rose substantially from 75.5 (75.5

per 1000) in 1975 to a high of 98.5 in 1980, the year

before the notice law went into effect, but then fell after

1980 to 96.0 in 1981 and to 73.5 in 1986, below the 1975

level. Again, even though the population in Minnesota

in the 18-19 age group fell from a high of 86,924 in 1976

to 74,689 in 1986, the pregnancy rate also declined 25.4%

between 1980-1986. 7

3. Abortion Rate for 10-17 Year Olds

The abortion rate equals the number of abortions in

the selected age group divided by the population of the

females in that age group in thousands (abortions/popu-

lation). Table 2 and Figure 2a show that the abortion

rate for the 10-17 age group rose from 4.9 in 1975 to a

high of 8.4 in 1980, the year before the notice law became

effective, and then fell to 6.8 in 1981, to a low of 5.4 in

1983 and 6.1 in 1986.° The abortion rate thus rose 71.4%

between 1975-1980 and then fell 27.4% between 1980-

1986.

4. Abortion Rate for 18-19 Year Olds

The Department’s data also show that the abortion rate

for the 18-19 age group in Minnesota fell during the time

® Stanley Henshaw suggested that the rate of abortions for teens

age 15-17 has declined, in part, because they passed themselves

off as 18. Henshaw T. 61. This is implausible because it would

result in an increase in the abortion rate for 18-19 year olds,

which plainly did not occur.

that the notice law was in effect. Table 2 and Figure 2b

show that the abortion rate rose fiom 20.4 in 1975 to a

high of 40.1 in 1980, the year before the notice law be-

came effective. The abortion rate then fell 4.8% to 38.20

in 1981 and a further 16.8% to a low of 31.80 in 1986.

The abortion rate thus rose 96.6% between 1975-1980

and fell 20.7% between 1980-1986.

5. Birth Rate for 10-17 Year Olds

The birth rate equals the number of births in the se-

lected age group divided by the population of females in

that age group in thousands (births/population). Figure

2a and Table 2 show that the birth rate for the 10-17 age

group in Minnesota fell from 7.8 (7.8 per 1000 teens) in

1975 to 7.2 in 1980, and that it continued to fall to 7.0

in 1981, to a low of 5.8 in 1983 and then to 6.3 in 1986.

The birth rate therefore fell 7.7% between 1975-1980 but

fell 12.5% between 1980-1986.

6. Birth Rate for 18-19 Year Olds

The Department’s data show that the birth rate for the

18-19 age group in Minnesota fell during the time the

notice law was in effect. Table 2 and Figure 2b show

that the birth rate for the 18-19 age group rose from 54.6

in 1975 to 58.0% in 1980 (+6.2%), the last full year be-

fore the notice law took effect. The birth rate in this age

group then fell to 57.4 in 1981 and to a low of 41.5 in

1986. Thus, the birth rate fell 28.4% between 1980-1986.

In sum, the Department’s data refute the clinics’ con-

tention that the notice law increased the birth rate for

teenagers in Minnesota. Between 1980-1986, the birth

rate fell 12.5% for 10-17 year olds, 28.4% for 18-19

year olds, and 23.6% for 20-24 year olds.” In contrast,

19 Stanley Henshaw acknowledged the decline in Minnesota birth

rates for 15-17 and 18-19 year olds, but attributed this to a re-

gional decline. J.A. 100.

the birth rate for 25-54 year olds increased 6.1% between

1980-1986. The Minneapolis birth rate data is separately

examined in Section III below.

C. The Data Are Strong Evidence that the Notice Law

Effectively Reduced Teen Pregnancy Rates in Min-

nesota During Its Effective Period.

The comparison of the pregnancy, abortion, and birth

rates in Minnesota between 1931-1986 strongly supports

the conclusion that the notice law effectively caused a de-

crease in the pregnancy rate in those years. Since the

abortion rate fell 27.4% for 10-17 year olds and 20.7%

for 18-19 year olds, while the birth rate throughout Min-

nesota simultaneously fell 12.5% for 10-17 year olds and

28.4% for 18-19 year olds, the pregnancy rate must have

declined, as the data confirm, supporting the conclusion

that the notice law in fact changed adolescent behavior.

In other words, since it seems undisputed that the notice

law did directly decrease abortion rates, while birth rates

simultaneously decreased, the law must have decreased

abortion rates by affecting pregnancy rates.

In addition, the number of teens, aged 10-17, who

aborted as a percentage of all pregnant teens (including

fetal deaths), aged 10-17, did not decline markedly be-

tween 1980-1986. The figures are, respectively, for those

years: 53.9%, 49.0%, 47.3%, 47.9%, 46.0%, 50.3%,

49.3%. This is further evidence that the impact of the

notice law was to reduce teen pregnancies generally,

rather than to compel teens to give birth rather than

abort.

On the other hand, it may not be possible, examining

the pregnancy and abortion rates in Minnesota alone, to

conclude with certainty that the notice law itself caused

lower pregnancy rates by inducing minors to change their

behavior. But the Department’s data at least make clear

that the notice law did not cause higher birth rates in

Minnesota and was enforced during an unprecedented pe-

ng ee A Ne RO ET me

riod when pregnancy and abortion rates decli

conan s declined for teens

D. Minnesota Teenagers Did Not Have Abortions at

Significantly Later Points in Pregnancy Relative

to Other Age Groups While the Notice Law Was in

Effect.

The plaintiff clinics claim that the notice law delayed

minors from having abortions, pushing them into later

gestational periods, with the implication that this in-

creased the risk of abortion. Pet. Br. at 13-14; T. 2088;

J.A. 347. For this claim, they rely, in part, on a report

by the Meadowbrook Women’s Clinic, one of the plain-

tiffs, that “as of December 1985, over 30% of their minor

patients seeking abortions were in the second trimester.”

Pet. Br. at 14 n.29. But this bare statistic from one

clinic, presented in isolation, says virtually nothing

Moreover, the Department’s data bely these claims gen-

— See also Cross Pet. Br. at 19; J.A. 346-49, 474,

Table 3 and Figure 3a show the number of abortions

performed at [greater than] 12 weeks gestational age for

all age groups between 1975-1986." For the 10-17 age

group, the number of abortions performed after 12

weeks grew from 403 in 1978 to 510 in 1980 jump-

ing substantially between 1979-1980, but declined ‘sharply

(28.4%) from 1980-1981. Between 1981-1986 the num-

ber of abortions performed in this age group after 12

weeks continued to decline 8.8% to 333 in 1986.

Table 3 and Figure 3b show the

. percentage of abor-

tions performed after 12 weeks. For the 10-17 age Prvwane

11 The 12-week point was used becau i

se 12 weeks is generall

used as the line between the first and second siineetens aad

cause the clinics’ allegation is that the proportion of minors who

had “second trimester abortions increased dramatically.” Pet. Br

hn sa Dr. Paul Gunderson also used a 12 week cutoff. T. 2103-

the percentage of abortions performed after 12 weeks

grew 22.3% from 1975-1980, declined between 1980-1982,

increased between 1982-1984 and then declined between

1984 and 1986, with the result that the percentage of

abortions performed after 12 weeks in 1985 was nearly

the same as the percentage in 1980. For 1980-1986, the

percentage of abortions performed at [greater than] 12

weeks for 10-17 year olds dropped 1.4%. :

The figures for the 10-17 age group, however, cannot

properly be viewed in isolation but must be compared

with the figures for the other three age groups in Minne-

sota between 1975-1986. The percentage of abortions

performed after 12 weeks for the 18-19 age group de-

clined from 16.6% in 1980 to 15.2% in 1982, and then

increased from 1982 to 1984 before dropping between

1984-86, a total increase between 1980-86 of 10.3%. A

similar pattern occurred for the 20-24 and the 25-54 age

groups. The 20-24 age group shows a 9.8% increase from

1975-80 in the percentage of abortions performed after

12 weeks. But there is a significant increase in 1984 he-

fore a drop to 1986, with a resulting increase of 4.5%

between 1980-86. For the 25-54 age group, the percent-

age of abortions performed after 12 weeks decreased

2.3% between 1975-80 and then increased 1.2% between

1980-86.

Three primary characteristics should be noted for all

age groups. First, the percentage of abortions performed

after 12 weeks is consistently related to age differences,

both before and after the enactment of the notice law.

The percentage of abortions after 12 weeks for the 10-17

age group is consistently higher than the 18-19 age group,

which is consistently higher than the 20-24 age group,

which is consistently higher than the 25-54 age group for

all years from 1975-1986. Second, as Figure 3b shows,

for all groups there appears to be a cyclical trend with

“neaks” every four years, which the notice law has not

interrupted. Third, after the notice law became effective

in 1981, the percentage of abortions after 12 weeks dropped

for all age groups between 1980-1981, rose slightly from

1981-1982, and rose after 1982. The fact that the num-

ber and percentage of abortions performed after 12 weeks

in the 10-17 age group dropped between 1980 and 1981,

and the fact that the number of abortions for all age

groups performed after 12 weeks increased after 1982,

provide strong evidence that the notice law did not selec-

tively increase the gestational age at which teens obtained

abortion.

E. Minnesota Teenagers Did Not Have Increased Com-

plications From Induced Abortion Relative to Other

Age Groups While the Notice Law Was in Effect.

The plaintiff clinics also claim that complications from

induced abortions incurred by teens subjected to the notice

law increased because of the law. This claim is based

entirely on journal publications about general rates of

complications and not on any specific medical evidence in

the record. See Pet. Br. at 14; J.A. 347-48." By relying

on general rates of complications, which generally in-

crease with gestational age, the clinics’ argument assumes

the validity of their claim that the law caused adolescents

to have later abortions. But this assumption has been

contradicted by the Department’s data. Independent of

the gestational age data, the Department’s data indicate

that the claim of increased complications is unfounded.

See Cross Pet. Br. at 19, 39-40; J.A. 347-48.

12 Plaintiffs’ counsel told the district court: “In Plaintiffs’ Ex-

hibits 1 through 9 and also in Dr. Hodgson’s testimony there is

a claim that the risk increases through delay, specifically the types

of risks such as laminaria due to cervical—lack of laminaria use

which relates to cervical injury, but we haven’t demonstrated or

said on any particular patients those risks have occurred except

those who haven’t been able to get it, who have gone to childbirth,

which of course is much more dangerous.’ T. 2088; J.A. 347.

When asked by the court whether the claiia was that the notice

law “resulted in an increase in complications to minors” rather than

an increase in “risk,” counsel for plaintiffs replied, “No.” Jd. .

For purposes of this analysis, it must be understood

that between 1982-1984, the Department changed and

broadened its definition of “complication” for purposes of

the reporting statute. T. 2090-2094. This broader defini-

tion encompassed more specific instances of morbidity

that were required to be reported as complications of

abortion. Specifically, the Department changed their re-

porting form to include more examples of complications

(from 8 categories to 12 categories), including a distinc-

tion between “minor” complications (not requiring hos-

pitalization) and “major” complications (requiring hos-

pitalization) (e.g., pelvic infection, hemorrhage, and oth-

ers). In the aftermath, the Department found increased

reporting of “minor” complications.

Table 4 and Figures 4a-4b show the number and per-

centage of abortions with reported complications for all

age groups in Minnesota, 1975-1986. The rate of compli-

cations is determined by dividing the number of complica-

tions by the number of abortions. For the 10-17 age

group, the number of complications declined from 16 in

1975 to 6 in 1980, and then declined to 0 in 1981, before

jumping to 10 in 1982 and dropping to 8 in 1986, the

same as the 1978 figure. Figure 4b shows that, for the

10-17 age group, the percentage of abortions with re-

ported complications increases 56.39 between 1982-1984

but then declines 48.0% between 1984-1986. For the 18-

19 age group, the percentage increases 211.1% between

1982-1984 and then declines 43.8% between 1984-1986.

For the 20-24 age group, the percentage increases 60.9%

between 1982-1984 and then declines 18.4% between 1984-

1986. Finally, for the 25-54 age group, the percentage

increases 33.7% between 1982-1984 and continues to in-

crease 3.4% between 1984-1986.

In sum, the Department’s data show that reported

complications increased for all age groups between 1975-

1986. This is entirely consistent with the Department’s

findings after the change in its definition of complica-

tions. Between 1982-1984, the percentage of complica-

tions increased more for the 18-19 and 20-24 age groups

than for the 10-17 group. And, between 1984-1986, the

percentage of complications fell less for all other groups

than the 10-17 age group. These facts provide strong

evidence that the notice law caused no increased compli-

cations for teens age 10-17 who were subject to the law.

Ill. THE CONTENTION THAT THE NOTICE LAW IN-

CREASED BIRTHS TO TEENS IS BASED ON STA-

TISTICS FOR ONLY THE LIMITED AREA OF THE

MINNEAPOLIS CITY LIMITS AND THESE MUST

BE VIEWED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF OTHER

DEMOGRAPHIC PHENOMENA IN MINNEAPOLIS

AND THROUGHOUT THE STATE.

The plaintiff clinics claim that the notice law caused

a 38.4% increase in the birth rate to teens age 15-17 by

relying on a 38.4% increase in the birth rate for teens

age 15-17 in Minneapolis between 1980-84. Pet.Br. at

12. Plaintiffs, purporting to quote Edward Ehlinger of

the Minneapolis Dept. of Health, argue that the notice

law “was the only factor that uniquely affected the fifteen

to seventeen year old age group which could explain the

difference.” Pet.Br. at 12. Ehlinger, in fact, did not say

that it was the “only” factor; he said merely that it

“would be an important factor.” T. 2030-31.

As this Court stated recently in Webster v. Reproduc-

tive Health Services, Inc., 109 S.Ct. 3040, 3050 (1989),

the states may “make a value judgment favoring child-

birth over abortion.” Thus, the fact that the notice law

may have increased births to teens affected by the law

is not a constitutional indictment against the law. Such

a fact would merely imply that parental influence, as

required by the law, had encouraged teens to give birth

rather than abort. Such parental guidance is hardly a

result which violates the Constitution. But, in fact, the

data undermine the claim that the notice law caused in-

creased births to teens either in Minnesota generally or

in Minneapolis specifically.

The clinics’ assertion rests entirely on data gathered

from the Minneapolis Department of Health concerning

residents of the City of Minneapolis only. See P. Exh.

116; T. 2072 (Dr. Paul Gunderson). The data do show

an increase of 38.4% between 1980-84 in births to teens

between the age of 15-17 who are residents of Minne-

apolis. See Table 5. For 1980-87, the birth rate of Min-

neapolis teens aged 15-17 is 39.1, 41.2, 42.7, 47.3, 54.1,

58.2, 62.2, 64.5, respectively. When seen within the con-

text of demographic statistics throughout Minnesota and

within demographic changes in Minnesota in the 1980’s,

however, the allegation that the increase is due to the no-

tice law is doubtful.

Initially, it is important to realize that teens who are

residents of Minneapolis make up roughly only 6% of

the teen population of Minnesota. In 1981, the 15-17 year

old female population for Minnesota was 107,784, while

the female population in Minneapolis for ages 15-17 was

only 6,548. Thus, the 38.4% increase in the birth rate

in Minneapolis was limited to 6% of the state’s popula-

tion of 15-17 year olds.

Statistics throughout Minnesota show that the 38.4%

increase in the birth rate to Minneapolis residents age

15-17 between 1980 and 1984 was unique to Minneapolis

and did not occur in metropolitan Minneapolis or in

Minnesota in general, as Table 5 and Figure 5a show.

See also T. 2073-74 (Dr. Paul Gunderson). The birth

rates for ages 15-17 in years 1980-1986 in metropolitan

Minneapolis are 17.4, 17.2, 17.2, 15.1, 17.4, 16.5, 17.8.

And the birth rate for ages 15-17 between 1980-86 in

Minnesota as a whole is 17.5, 17.5, 16.6, 14.6, 16.1, 15.1,

15.6. In addition, Minneapolis differs in birth rate from

other geographic regions in Minnesota for other age

groups besides 15-17, particularly for ages 10-14, 18-19,

and 25-34, as Table 5 and Figures 5b-5e show. Finally,

the Minneapolis birth rate for 15-17 year olds continues

to climb throughout 1986 and 1987, even after the notice

law was enjoined in March, 1986.

The number of births to teens as a percentage of all

births in Minneapolis must also be considered. In Table

7 and Figure 7a, it is apparent that the percentage of

births to minors in Minneapolis is lower than that found

in the nation generally, but exhibits a remarkably par-

allel trend to the national trend over time. The selective

increase in birth rate in Minneapolis is reflected in the

Minneapolis line in Figure 7a, insofar as the percentage

of total births to teen births in Minneapolis rises con-

trary to the national and statewide trend between 1985-

1987. But this increase occurs later than we would ex-

pect were it a result of a law enacted in 1981. The real in-

crease in the percent of births to minors does not happen

until several years later: 1985, 1986, and 1987, when the

law was no longer in effect. The increase in the 15-17

year old Minneapolis birth rate during 1981-83 is not

accompanied by an increase in births to minors as a per-

centage of total births. This clearly parallels both the

Minnesota and national trends in its decline during 1981-

83. The opposing trends in Minneapolis in birth rate to

minors 15-17 (Figure 5a) and percent of births to minors

(Figure 7a) indicate that birth rates must have been

increasing in general in Minneapolis from 1981-83, re-

gardless of age. This indicates that the increase in birth

rates in Minneapolis to minors during the enactment

period of the notice law was merely part of a larger trend

effecting all minors and adult women, including those not

subject to the law.

Moreover, the increase in births for Minneapolis teens

age 15-17 leads to a different conclusion when the Min-

neapolis population is examined in more detail. When

the Minneapolis births are broken down by race, and

compared with data from the National Center for Health

Statistics, the increase in births to girls under 18 is seen

to be largely confined to the minority population, spe-

~ 28

cifically the population of Asian-Pacifics. Figure 7b is

a breakdown by race of the Minneapolis and national

trend lines in Figure 7a. The Asian-Pacific Island per-

centage of births to minors deviates from the national

trend and increases dramatically. All other races roughly

parallel national trends in their decline, at least until

1986, when the notice law was enjoined. This would sug-

gest that Asian-Pacifics are disproportionately impacting

the birth rate for teens age 15-17 in Minneapolis. It is im-

plausible that the notice law would selectively impact

Asian-Pacifics more than other races in Minneapolis.

Therefore, other explanations for the Minneapolis in-

crease in birth rate should be explored.

Figure 8 suggests one possible explanation—a substan-

tial increase in the population of Asian-Pacific teens.

Figure 8 shows the percent of minority enrollment in the

Minneapolis Public School District from 1971 to 1987.

This Figure shows that the percentage of Asian enroll-

ment sharply increases between 1980-1981 and continues

to increase from 1981-1987. It is precisely during this

time that the percent of all births to minors for the

Asian-Pacific population experienced the greatest in-

crease. These statistics show an unusual increase in both

the Asian-Pacific population in Minneapolis and in the

percentage of births to minors for this population.

This increase in births to Asian-Pacific minors must be

compared with the abortion behavior of this population.

The abortion rate is important to consider because the

clinics’ challenge to the notice law is predicated on the

assumption that it keeps minors from getting abortions.

The notice law can directly influence only the abortion

rate and the birth rate is influenced by a reduction in the

number of abortions. This implies that as the influence

of the notice law on the abortion rate decreases, its po-

tential influence on the birth rate should also decline.

Yet, Dr. Paul Gunderson testified to the virtual non-

existence of abortion to the Asian-Pacific population. See

T. 2076 (Dr. Paul Gunderson commenting on the low

abortion rate of Asians in Minnesota). It is improbable,

therefore, that a group with an extremely low abortion

rate before the law went into effect would be the most

effected by the law in terms of birth rate. Some other

factor ( s), and not the notice law, must explain this

increase.

In summary, the Minneapolis data do not support the

contention that birth rates for teens in Minneapolis in-

creased because of the notice law. When viewed in con-

junction with the data from other regions of Minnesota,

it appears that the notice law did not increase births to

teens in Minneapolis. Together with the marked decrease

in pregnancy rates and abortion rates in Minnesota, these

data demonstrate that the notice law, as applied, is rea-

sonably related to preserving parental authority and pro-

tecting the health of minors.

CONCLUSION |

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Eighth Circuit should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

Of Counsel: CLARKE D. FORSYTHE *

KENT MASTERSON BROWN LEANNE McCoy

1114 First National Bldg. | AMERICANS UNITED FoR LIFE

167 West Main Street LEGAL DEFENSE FUND (AUL)

Lexington, KY 40507 343 S. Dearborn Street +1804

(606) 233-7879 Chicago, IL 60604

(312) 786-9494

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

October 10, 1989 * Counsel of Record

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1:

STATE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND PARENTAL

CONSENT OR NOTICE OF ABORTION STATUTES

ALABAMA: Parental consent statute enacted in 1987;

in effect and enforced since September 23, 1987. Ala.

Code sec. 26-21-3 (Supp. 1988); Ex parte: State of Ala-

bama and Ex parte: Anonymous, 531 So.2d 901 (Ala.

1988).

No reporting statute.

ALASKA: Parental consent statute enacted in 1970.

Alaska Stat. sec. 18.16.010(a) (3) (1987). On October 21,

1976, an opinion of the Attorney General declared that

this subsection is “clearly unconstitutional.”

No reporting statute.

ARIZONA: Parental notice statute enacted in 1982;

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. sec. 36-2152 (1986); enjoined by

federal court. New parental consent statute enacted May

22, 1989, with an intended effective date of September 15,

1989; preliminarily enjoined by federal court on Septem-

ber 15, 1989, and injunction extended on September 22,

1989. Planned Parenthood v. Neeley, No. CIV 89-489

TUC ACM (D.Ariz. 1989).

Reporting statute in effect from January 1, 1968. Ariz.

Rev. Stat. Ann. sec. 36-340 and 341 (1986).

ARKANSAS: Parental consent statute enacted in 1969.

Ark. Stat. Ann. sec. 41-2555 (Supp. 1985). Enjoined by

federal court in 1980. Smith v. Bentley, 493 F.Supp. 916

(E.D. Ark. 1980). New parental notification statute en-

acted in 1989. Ark. Acts 270.

Reporting statute in effect from February 19, 1981.

Ark. Stat. Ann. sec. 20-18-603 (1987).

CALIFORNIA: Parental consent statute enacted in

1987, with intended effective date of January 1, 1988.

Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 25958 (Supp. 1988).

Continuing state court injunction since December 28,

1987, entered on facial challenge to parental consent stat-

ute. American Academy of Pediatrics v. Van de Kamp,

No. 884574 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 28, 1987), appeal dock-

eted, No. A040911 (1st Cir. Cal. App. argued August,

1989).

Reporting statute was added by statutes in 1971,

amended and effective on June 30, 1973, and operative on

July 1, 1973. Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 25955.5

(1984).

COLORADO: No parental or reporting statute.

CONNECTICUT: No parental or reporting statute.

DELAWARE: Parental notice statute enacted on June

17, 1969, but not presently operative. Del. Code Ann. tit.

24, sec. 1790(b) (3) (1981).

Reporting statute enacted on June 17, 1969. Del. Code

Ann. tit. 24, sec. 1790(c) (1981).

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: No parental or reporting

statute.

FLORIDA: Parental consent statute enacted in 1979.

Fla. Stat. Ann. sec. 390.001(4) (a) (West Supp. 1985).

Enjoined by federal court on July 10, 1979, and subse-

quently declared unconstitutional; Scheinberg v. Smith,

482 F.Supp. 529 (S.D. Fla. 1979), aff'd, 659 F.2d 476

(5th Cir. 1981) ; parental consent statute enacted on June

15, 1988, with intended effective date of October 1, 1988;

enjoined by federal court injunction on facial challenge

on October 6, 1988, which was dissolved on February 13,

1989. Jacksonville Clergy Consultation v. Martinez, 707

F. Supp. 1301 (M.D. Fla. 1989), appeal docketed, No. 89-

3127 (11th Cir.). Declared unconstitutional on May 12,

1989. In re T.W., 543 So.2d 837 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 1989).

Reporting statute in effect as of August 5, 1979. Fila.

Stat. Ann. tit. 29, sec. 390.002 (1986).

ee eT ee ee

GEORGIA: Parental notice statute enacted on April 14,

1987, with intended effective date of July 1, 1987. Ga.

Code Ann. sec. 24A-4401 (Supp. 1988). Enjoined by fed-

eral injunction on June 30, 1987. Planned Parenthood v.

Harris, 670 F. Supp. 971 (N.D. Ga. 1987). Amended

parental notice statute enacted on March 31, 1988, with

intended effective date of July 1, 1988; enjoined by con-

tinuing federal injunction on July 11, 1988. Planned

Parenthood v. Harris, 691 F.Supp. 1419 (N.D. Ga. 1988).

There are two reporting statutes in the Georgia Code

of 1981, which became effective or November 1, 1982.

Ga. Code Ann. sec. 31-10-19, 16-12-141 (1988).

HAWAII: No parental or reporting statute.

IDAHO: Parental notice statute enacted in 1973; Idaho

Code sec. 18-609(6) (1985).

No reporting statute.

ILLINOIS: Parental consent statute (Ill. Ann. Stat. ch.

38, para. 81-51 et seq. (Smith-Hurd 1989)) enacted in

1977 with an effective date of Jan. 1, 1978; enjoined by

federal court in Wynn v. Scott, 448 F.Supp. 997 (N.D.

Ill. 1978), aff'd 582 F.2d 1375 (7th Cir. 1978); see also

Wynn v. Carey, 559 F.2d 193 (7th Cir. 1979). Parental

notice statute enacted on November 2, 1983, with intended

effective date of January 31, 1984; Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 38,

para. 81-65 (1988) ; enjoined by continuing federal court

injunction since January 26, 1984. Hartigan v. Zbaraz,

584 F.Supp. 1452 (N.D. Ill. 1984), aff'd, 763 F.2d 1532

(7th Cir. 1985), aff'd by equally divided court, 108 S.Ct.

479 (1989).

Reporting statute amended in 1984. II]. Rev. Stat. ch.

38, para. 81-30 (1989). Enjoined by continuing federal

court temporary restraining order since 1984 from gath-

ering abortion statistics, Herbst v. Daley, No. 84 C 5602

(N.D. Ill. July 1, 1984).

INDIANA: Parental consent statute enacted in 1974;

enjoined by federal court. Gary-Northwest Women’s Serv.

Inc. v. Bowen, 418 F.Supp. 9 (N.D. Ind. 1976), aff'd on

other grounds, 429 U.S. 1067 (1977). Parental notifica-

tion statute enacted in 1982, with intended effective date

of Sept. 1, 1982; Ind. Code Ann. sec. 35-1-58.5-2.5 (Burns

Supp. 1986). Enjoined by federal court in Indiana

Planned Parenthood v. Pearson, 716 F.2d 1127 (7th Cir.

1983); New parental consent statute enacted in 1984;

enforced since September 1, 1984.

Reporting statutes in effect as of July 26, 1973. Ind.

Code Ann. sec. 35-1-58.5-3 and sec. 35-1-58.5-5 (Burns

Supp. 1988).

IOWA: No current parental involvement or reporting

statute.

KANSAS: No parental involvement statute.

Reporting statute in effect as of July 1, 1975. Kan.

Stat. Ann. sec. 65-445 (1985).

KENTUCKY: Parental consent statute enacted in 1982

with intended effective date of July 15, 1982. Ky. Rev.

Stat. Ann. sec. 311-732 (1983). A temporary restraining

order was entered against Kentucky’s entire abortion

statute on July 9, 1982, and the entire Act was declared

unconstitutional on September 11, 1984. See Eubanks v.

Brown, 604 F. Supp. 141 (W.D. Ky. 1984). The parental

consent statute was amended in 1984 and again in 1986

with an intended effective date of July 15, 1986; tem-

porary restraining order entered on July 10, 1986, on

facial challenge and order lifted in approximately March

of 1989. On Aug. 28, 1988, the district court partially

enjoined the law, but upheld it as modified. See Eubanks

v. Wilkinson, No. C82-0360-L(A), slip op. at 35-36

(W.D. Ky. Aug. 23, 1988), appeal docketed, No. 88-6085

(6th Cir. Sept. 22, 1988), No. 89-5353 (6th Cir. Mar. 21,

1989).

Reporting statute intended to be in effect as of July 15,

1982, but a temporary restraining order was entered

against the State’s entire abortion Act on July 9, 1982,

and then the Act was declared unconstitutional on Sep-

tember 11, 1984. See Eubanks v. Brown,

LOUISIANA: Parental consent statute enacted in 1978,

amended in 1980 and amended and reenacted in 1981

with this most recent version going into effect on July 23,

1981; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. sec. 40:1299.35.5 (West Supp.

1988) ; upheld by federal court in Margaret S. v. Treen,

597 F. Supp. 636 (E.D. La. 1984).

Reporting statute enacted in 1978. La. Rev. Stat. Ann.

sec. 40:1299.35.10, 40:1299.35.11 (1989). Constitutional-

ity upheld except to the extent that the statute requires

doctors to provide the zip code or residence of the preg-

nant woman. Margaret S. v. Edwards, 488 F. Supp. 181

(E.D. La. 1980). Related reporting statute enacted in

1979. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. sec. 40:48 (1989).

MAINE: Parental notice statute enacted in 1979 with

an intended effective date of Sept. 14, 1979, but it was

enjoined on Sept. 13, 1979. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22,

sec. 1597 (1980 and Supp. 1988); Women’s Community

Health Center v. Cohen, 477 F. Supp. 542 (D.Me. 1979).

Reporting statute in effect as of March 31, 1978. Me.

Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 22, sec. 1596 (1980).

MARYLAND: Parental notice statute enacted in 1982;

Md. Health-Gen. Code Ann. sec. 20-103 (1987). Attorney

General issued opinion that it is unconstitutional. 70 Op.

Atty. Gen. (Dec. 31, 1985).

Reporting statute in effect since 1968. Md. Health-

Gen. Code Ann. sec. 20-208(c) (1987).

MASSACHUSETTS: Parental consent statute enacted

on August 2, 1974, with intended effective date of Octo-

ber 31, 1974; Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 112, sec. 12 (Michie/

Law. Co-op. 1985) ; enjoined by federal court on October

30, 1974; constitutionality upheld. The Massachusetts

statute was enjoined and never enforced until after this

Court’s decision in 1981. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622,

625 n.1 (1979); constitutionality upheld. Planned Par-

enthood v. Bellotti, 641 F.2d 1006 (1st Cir. 1981).

Reporting statute was in effect as of 1974. Mass. Ann.

Laws ch. 112, sec. 12R (Michie/Law. Co-op. 1985).

MICHIGAN: No parental statute.

Reporting statute enacted in 1978. Pub. Act 368 of

1978. Mich. Stat. Ann. sec. 14.15 (2835) (Callaghan

1988).

MISSISSIPPI: Parental consent statute enacted in 1986,

with intended effective date of July 1, 1986; Miss. Code

Ann. sec. 41-41-53 (1988); enjoined by continuing, pre-

liminary federal injunction since July 2, 1986, on facial

challenge. Barnes v. Mississippi, No. J86-0458 (w) (S.D.

Miss. 5/13/87).

No reporting statute.

MISSOURI: Parental consent statute enacted on June

14, 1974, with intended effective date of June 14, 1974;

upheld by federal court on January 31, 1975. Planned

Parenthood v. Danforth, 392 F. Supp. 1362 (1975);

parental consent statute enacted in 1979 with intended

effective date of June 29, 1979; Mo. Ann. Stat. sec.

188.028 (Vernon Supp. 1989); enjoined by federal court

injunction from time of enactment until 1985. See Plan-

ned Parenthood v. Ashcroft, 483 F. Supp. 679, 683 (W.D.

Mo. 1980); constitutionality upheld in Planned Parent-

hood v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (1983) ; subject to renewed

challenge; injunction lifted in 1986. T.L.J/. v. Webster,

792 F.2d 734 (8th Cir. 1986).

Reporting statutes have been in effect since June 29,

1979. Mo.Ann. Stat. sec. 188.052 and 188.055 (Vernon

Supp. 1989); upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth,

428 U.S. 52 (1976).

MONTANA: Parental notice statute enacted in 1974,

but not presently operative. Mont. Code Ann. sec. 50-

20-107 (1987).

Reporting statute in effect since 1974. Mont. Code Ann.

sec. 50-20-110 (1987).

NEBRASKA: Parental notice statute enacted in 1981

with effective date of May 29, 1981; Neb. Rev. Stat. sec.

28-347 (1985); enjoined on September 16, 1983, in Orr

v. Knowles, No. 81-0-301 (D.Neb. Sept. 16, 1983).

Reporting statute in effect as of July 1, 1978. Neb.

Rev. Stat. sec. 28-343, 344, 345 (1985). Declared uncon-

stitutional and enjoined insofar as statute requires physi-

cians to make an official report of “prescribed” abortions.

Women’s Services, P.C. v. Thone, 483 F. Supp. 1022 (D.

Neb. 1979).

NEVADA: Parental notice statute enacted on June 14,

1985, with intended effective date of July 1, 1985; Nev.

Rev. Stat. sec. 442.255 (1986 & Supp. 1988) ; enjoined by

continuing federal injunction since June 28, 1985, entered

on facial challenge; appeal pending before Ninth Circuit

since July 24, 1985. Glick v. McKay, 616 F. Supp. 322

(D. Nev. 1985), appeal docketed, No. 85-2335 (9th Cir.

1985).

Reporting statute in effect as of 1973. Nev. Rev. Stat.

sec. 442.260 (1986).

NEW HAMPSHIRE: No parental or reporting statute.

NEW JERSEY: No parental or reporting statute.

NEW MEXICO: No parental statute.

Reporting statute enacted in 1977. N.M. Stat. Ann.

sec, 24-14-18 (1986).

NEW YORK: No parental statute.

Reporting statute enacted in 1953 and most recently

amended in 1987, effective Jan. 1, 1988. N.Y. Pub.

Health Law sec. 4160, 4161 (McKinney 1989).

NORTH CAROLINA: No parental or reporting statute.

NORTH DAKOTA: Parental consent statute enacted

in 1981; N.D. Cent. Code sec. 14-02.1-03.1 (Supp. 1987).

Reporting statute in effect since 1975; N.D. Cent. Code

sec. 14-02.1-07; upheld in Leigh v. Olson, 497 F. Supp.

1340 (D. N.D. 1980).

OHIO: Parental notice statute enacted on November 20,

1985, with intended effective date of March 24, 1986; Ohio

Rev. Code Ann. sec. 2151.85, 2919.12, and 2505.73 (Page

Supp. 1985); enjoined by continuing federal injunction

on facial challenge since March 31, 1986 (TRO), which

became a preliminary injunction on April 22, 1986;

Akron Center for Reproductive Health v. Slaby, 633 F.

Supp. 1123 (N.D. Ohio 1986), aff'd, 854 F.2d 852 (6th

Cir. 1988), prob. juris. noted sub nom., Ohio v. Akron

Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., U.S. No. 88-805.

No reporting statute.

OKLAHOMA: No parental law.

Reporting statute in effect as of October 1, 1978. Okla.

Stat. Ann. tit. 63, sec. 1-738, 1-739 (West 1984).

OREGON: No parental law.

Reporting statute enacted in 1983. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann.

sec. 435.496 (1987).

PENNSYLVANIA: Parental consent statute enacted in

1982; Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, sec. 3206 (Purdon 1983) ;

parental consent statute amended on: March 25, 1988,

with intended effective date of April 24, 1988; enjoined

by continuing federal injunction since April 21, 1988, on

May 23, 1988. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 686 F.Supp.

1089 (E.D. Pa. 1988).

Reporting statute enacted in 1982. Pa. Stat. Ann. tit.

18, sec. 3214 (Purdon 1983). Partially enjoined in

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v.

Thornburgh, 613 F.Supp. 656 (E.D. Penn. 1985). The

statute was amended on March 3, 1988, with an intended

effective date of April 24, 1988. On April 21, 1988, a

federal court granted a temporary restraining order and

enjoined public disclosure of reports filed pursuant to

sec. 3214(f). Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 686 F.Supp.

at 1092. Then, the court permanently enjoined certain

provisions of the reporting statute on May 23, 1988. Id.

at 1129-1134.

RHODE ISLAND: Parenta! consent law enacted in

1982; R.I. Gen. Laws sec. 23-4.7-6 (Supp. 1985).

No reporting statute.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Parental consent statute was en-

acted in 1974; S.C. Code Ann. sec. 44-41-30 (Law. Co-op.

1985); enjoined by federal court; Floyd v. Anders, 440

F.Supp. 535 (D.S.C. 1977).

Reporting statute in effect as of 1975. S.C. Code Ann.

sec. 44-41-60 (Law. Co-op. 1985).

SOUTH DAKOTA: Parental consent statute was en-

acted in 1973, but it is not presently operative. S.D.

Codified Laws Ann. sec. 34-23A-7 (1986).

Reporting statute in effect as of 1973. S.D. Codified

Laws Ann. sec. 34-23A-19 (1986).

TENNESSEE: Parental consent statute enacted in 1978;

Tenn. Code Ann. sec. 39-4-202 (1982) ; enjoined by federal

court in 1979; Planned Parenthood v. Alexander, No. 79-

843 (Tenn. Ch. Ct. Oct. 24, 1979) ; parental consent stat-

ute enacted May 12, 1988, with intended effective date

of July 1, 1989; enjoined by continuing federal injunc-

tion on facial challenge on June 30, 1989; and ruled un-

constitutional on July 24, 1989, in Planned Parenthood

v. McWherter, 716 F.Supp. 1064 (M.D. Tenn. 1989),

appeal docketed, No. 89-6026 (6th Cir. Aug. 15, 1989).

10a

Reporting statute in effect as of 1973. Tenn. Code

Ann. sec. 39-4-203 (1982).

TEXAS: No parental or reporting statute. |

UTAH: Parental notice statute enacted in 1974; Utah

Code Ann. sec. 76-7-304 (1978) ; enjoined by federal court

injunction; L.R. v. Hanson, No. 80-78 (D. Utah Feb. 8,

1980) ; constitutionality upheld in H.L. v. Matheson, 450

U.S. 398 (1981); subject to renewed challenge in 1986;

H.B. v. Wilkinson, 639 F.Supp. 952 (D. Utah 1986).

Upheld and in effect.

Reporting statute in effect from 1974 and amended in

1981. Utah Code Ann. sec. 76-7-313 (1978).

VERMONT: No parental or reporting statute.

VIRGINIA: No parental or reporting statute.

WASHINGTON: Parental consent statute enacted in

1970 with effective date of May 14, 1970; Wash. Rev.

Code sec. 9.02.070 (1974). Enjoined on January 7, 1975,

in State v. Koome, 84 Wash.2d 901, 530 P.2d 260 (1975).

No reporting statute.

WEST VIRGINIA: Parental! notice statute enacted in

1984; W. Va. Code sec. 16-2F-3 (1985).

No reporting statute.

WISCONSIN: No parental statute.

Reporting statute enacted in 1985 and in effect as of

Nov. 1, 1986. Wis. Stat. Ann. sec. 69.186 (West 1989).

WYOMING: Parental consent and notice statute enacted

in 1989 with an effective date of June 8, 1989. Wyo.

Stat. sec. 35-6-118 (1989).

Reporting statute in effect after May 27, 1977. Wyo.

Stat. sec. 35-6-107 and 108 (1988).

lla

Table 1

Abortions, Births, and Pregnancies*®

YEAR AGE ABORTIONS BIRTHS (FETAL PREGNANCIES

DEATHS)

1973 10-17 . 2406 24

18-19 . 4509 46

20-24 . 18276 123

25-54 : 27211 277

1974 10-17 . 2330 35

18-19 . 4649 37

20-24 . 19096 174

25-54 : 26198 267

1975 10-17 1507 2427 24 3958

18-19 1758 4693 43 6494

20-24 2702 19137 162 22001

25-54 2161 28746 238 31145

1976 10-17 2060 2309 22 4391

18-19 2511 4469 37 7017

20-24 3643 186630 158 22431

25-54 2895 29676 264 32837

1977 10-17 2274 2280 19 4573

18-19 2693 4604 50 7347

20-24 4528 19863 133 24524

25-54 3529 32492 261 36282

1976 10-17 2186 2069 16 4271

18-19 3054 4644 40 7738

20-24 5066 19851 141 25058

25-54 3872 33710 267 37849

1979 10-17 2308 2035 21 4364

18-19 3293 - 4720 44 8057

20-24 5683 20938 126 26747

25-54 4355 3582? 245 40423

* source: Raw data provided by the Minnesota Department of

Health. Reported abortions, births, (fetal deaths) and

pregnancies are those occurring in Minnesota, with non-

residents and women of unknown age excluded. Pregnancies =

abortions + births +¢ fetal deaths. Aseumes negligabie

eccurrence of abortion to those of age 3 and below and age

55 and above. Abortion data unavailable for 1973 and 1974.

12a 18a

Table 1 (Continued) Figure 1a

Abortions, Births, and Pregnancies ; } ;

Abortions, Births, ana Pregnancies

YEAR AGE ABORTIONS BIRTHS (FETAL PREGNANCIES

DEATHS

' Ages 10-17

1980 10-17 2327 1974 14 4315

18-19 3380 4883 38 8301

20-24 6054 21899 140 28093

25-54 4716 37236 246 42198 P Thousands

1981 10-17 1820 1876 18 3714

18-19 3064 4602 31 7697 :

20-24 6047 21638 135 27820

25-54 4881 38654 269 43804

i 4 »

1982 10-17 1564 1727 16 3307

18-19 2799 4216 37 7052

20-24 5963 21161 132 27256 | ENACTMENT PERIOD ===

25-54 5180 39581 242 45003

1983 10-17 =: 1432 1538 17 2987 | sr

18-19 2547 3641 35 6223 : :

20-24 5487 19319 137 24943 tf : :

25-54 5012 39309 260 44501 . 7

1984 10-17 1295 1617 19 3031 | 2

: 18-19 2586 3502 24 6112 |

20-24 6032 18864 136 25032 ; ‘

25-54 5525 40941 282 46748 ;

1985 10-17 = :1870 1537 15 3122 | ib

18-19 2531 3401 26 5958 / : ;

20-24 6067 18408 109 24585 i ;

25-54 5812 42157 281 48250 | ENAGTMENT ENJOINMENT

1986 10-17 1545 1573 15 3133 | :

18-19 2372 3096 25 5493 ) 1.44 4-11 i‘ {14 “

20-24 5724 16959 109 22792 . 73 74 75 76 77 #78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

25-54 6035 42269 240 48544 |

* source: Raw data provided by the Minnesota rtment of

Health. Reported poet onagd br Anan oan anenee and —*~ ABORTION ' BIRTH *— PREGNANCY

pregnancies are those occurring in Minnesota, with non-

residents and women of unknown age excluded. Pregnancies =

abortions + births + fetal deaths. Aesumes negligablie

occurrence of abortion to those of age 9 and below and age

55 and above. Abortion data unavailable for 1973 and 1974.

l4a

Figure 1b

Abortions, Births, and Pregnancies

Ages 18-19

‘ Thousands

ENACTMENT PERIOD =

ENACTMENT : ENJOINMENT

Pres) Sete.

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

—— ABORTION —+— BIRTH —*- PREGNANCY

15a

Figure 1c

Abortions, Births, and Pregnancies

Ages 20-24

. Thousands

ENACTMENT PERIOD <p

10F

ENACTMENT } — ENJOINMENT

, ee ee. et Fe

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

—— ABORTION ~—+— BIRTH ~—*— PREGNANCY

. Thousands

16a

Figure 1d

Abortions, Births, and Pregnancies

Ages 25-54

10F

ENACTMENT PERIOD ———>

L 1 —

ENACTMENT

a a

*——" ERJOINMENT |

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

—*— ABORTION

—+— BIRTH

—*—- PREGNANCY

YEAR

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

AGE POPULATION ABORTION

RATE

10-17

18-19

20-24

25-54

10-17

18-19

20-24

25-54

10-17

18-19

20-24

25-54

10-17

18-19

20-24

25-54

10-17

18-19

20-24

25-54

10-17

18-19

20-24

25-54

10-17

18-19

20-24

25-54

319596

72982

177400

652953

318010

73248

1789011

659470

310605

85997

178645

683332

305394

86924

183437

699068

296203

86249

187586

709131

288244

85698

192125

724824

282243

85227

196312

744422

17a

Table 2

Abortion, Birth, and Pregnancy Rates*

o-N™N

wraaga

na ©

~oo @

©eoanw

Rate per 1000 female population.

provided by the

BIRTH

RATE

7.5

61-8

103.0

41.7

63.

106.

42.

Ss = eS

~-—-@ @ enuw

voe@

(2)

owen ~

vViQWVdNnN Nn

106.

55.4

46.1

Source:

PREGNANCY

RATE

12.

75.

123.

45.

anus

14.

80.

122.

47.

own &

15.

65.

130.

51.

NAN &

14.

90.

130.

52.

na Ww @

18.

94.

136.

54.

wauuwna

Raw data

Minnesota Department of Health. Rates

reflect abortions, births, (fetal deaths), and pregnancies

occurring in Minnesota,

unknown age excluded.

with non-residents and women of

Assumes negligable occurrence of

abortion to those of age 9 and below and age 55 and above.

Abortion data unavailable for 1973 and 1974.

18a

Table 2 (Continued)

Abortion, Birth, and Pregnancy Rates*

YEAR AGE POPULATION ABORTION BIRTH PREGNANCY

RATE RATE RATE

1980 10-17 276068 8.4 7.2 15.6

18-19 84247 . 40.1 58.0 98.5

20-24 198731 30.5 110.2 141.4

25-54 754692 6.3 49.3 55.9

1981 10-17 267488 —C. 6.8 7.0 13.9

18-19 80222 . 38.2 57.4 96.0

20-24 198269 30.5 109.1 140.3

25-54 770544 6.3 50.2 56.9

1982 10-17 262199 6.0 6.6 12.6

18-19 77282 36.2 54.6 91.3

20-24 197924 30.1 106.9 137.7

25-54 787094 6.6 50.3 57.2

1983 10-17 263225 5.4 5.8 11.4

18-19 77506 32.9 47.0 60.3

20-24 198460 27.7 97.3 125.7

25-54 789802 6.4 49.8 56.5

1984 10-17 249162 5.6 6.5 12.2

18-19 74080 34.9 47.3 82.5

20-24 199312 30.3 94.7 125.6

25-54 798979 6.9 51.2 58.5

1985 10-17 251107 6.3 6.1 12.4

18-19 74610 33.9 45.6 79.9

20-24 200994 30.2 91.6 122.3

25-54 806028 7.2 52.3 59.9

1986 10-17 251825 +1 6.3 12.4

18-19 74689 31.8 41.5 73.5

20-24 201415 28.4 84.2 113.2

25-54 808824 7.4 52.3 60.0

° Rate per 1000 female population. Source: Raw data

provided by the Minnesota Department of Health. Rates

reflect abortions, births, (fetal deaths), and pregnancies

occurring in Minnesota, with non-residents and women of

unknown age excluded. Assumes negligable occurrence of

abortion to those of age 9 and below and age 55 and above.

Abortion data unavailable for 1973 and 1974.

Figure 2a

Abortion, Birth, and Pregnancy Rates

Ages 10-17

Rate per 1000 Female Population

ENACTMENT PERIOD <p

iN —

ENJOINMENT

i ~

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

—*— ABORTION —+— BIRTH

82 83 84 85 86

—— PREGNANCY

20a

Figure 2b

Abortion, Birth, and Pregnancy Rates

Ages 18-19

- Rate per 1000 Female Population

80 F

ENACTMENT PERIOD <p

ENACTMENT | ENJOINMENT

20 = tL l .— Na j l l ‘=

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

—*—~ ABORTION -—+~ BIRTH —* PREGNANCY

2la

Figure 2c

Abortion, Birth, and Pregnancy Rates

Ages 20-24

Rate per 1000 Female Population

150

120

ENACTMENT PERIOD <=>

ENACTMENT | ENJOINMENT

; ;

SS a A“

°3 74 75 76 77:78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

—*— ABORTION ~—+- BIRTH —*- PREGNANCY

Figure 2d Table 3

: , Number and Percentage of Abortions

Abortion, Birth, and Pregnancy Rates with Gestation Age > 12 Weeks®

Ages 25-54 TOTAL ABORTIONS PERCENTAGE

YEAR AGE WUMBER OF PERFORMED OF ABORTIONS

ABORTIONS AT > 12 WKS PERFORMED

GESTATION AT > 12 WKS

Rat GESTATION

go Rate_per 1000 Female Population —e |h|ClUae a 79.8

18-19 1758 228 13.0

20-24 2702 275 10.2

25-54 2161 189 8.7

1976 10-17 2060 470 22.8

18-19 2511 426 17.0

20-24 3643 446 12.2

25-54 2895 306 10.6

: 1977 10-17 2274 474 20.8

18-19 2693 464 17.2

; 25-54 3529 368 10.4

30 ff.

: 1978 10-17 2186 403 18.4

18-19 3054 449 14.7

: 20-24 5066 505 10.0

a ao-08 wove oe v8

1979 10-17 2308 432 18.7

: 18-19 3293 460 14.0

; 20-24 5683 591 10.4

10+ saibin Ee 25-54 4355 327 7.5

> —~ a 1980 =: 10-17 2327 510 21.9

—~ ENACTMENT : ENJOINMENT 18-19 3380 562 16.6

a a i. ™ 20-24 6054 681 11.2

7 25-54 4716 403 8.5

3 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

* source: Raw data provided by the Minnesota Department of —

Health. Table reflects abortions occurring in Minnesota,

— —— —s with non-residents and women of unknown age excluded.

ABORTION BIRTH PREGNANCY Assumes negligable occurrence of abortion to those of age 9

and below and age 55 and above.

24a 25a

Table 3 (Continued) Figure 3a

Number and Percentage _of Abortions :

with Gestation Age > 12 Weeks* Number of Abortions

TOTAL = ABORTIONS =» PERCENTAGE with Gestation Age > 12 Weeks

YEAR AGE NUMBER OF PERFORMED OF ABORTIONS

ABORTIONS AT > 12 WKS PERFORMED

GESTATION AT > 12 WKS

GESTATION

1981 10-17 1820 365 20.1 *

18-19 3064 462 15.1 750 + i

20-24 6047 625 10.3 ; ; .

25-54 4881 363 7.4 é

1982 10-17 1564 322 20.6 650 + ENACTMENT PERIOD 4atmienp> f ¥

18-19 2799 425 15.2 a ee ee

20-24 5963 631 10.6

25-54 5180 412 8.0

1983 10-17 1432 334 23.3 =

18-19 2547 419 16.5

20-24 5487 626 11.4

25-54 - 5012 370 7.4 450

1984 10-17 1395 360 25.8

18-19 2586 489 18.9

20-24 6032 786 13.0

25-54 5525 461 8.3 350

1985 10-17 1570 361 23.0

18-19 2531 441 17.4 :

20-24 6067 723 11.9 250 |

25-54 5812 458 7.9 :

; ENACTMENT ENJOINMENT

“oe ome fle ol

20-24 5724 eee "1.7 75 76 77 78 #79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

25-54 6035 516 8.6

° Source: Raw data provided by the Minnesota Department of

—— AGES 10-17 —+- AGES 18-19

Health. Table reflects abortions occurring in Minnesota,

with non-residents and women of unknown age excluded. -#% AGES 20-24 “G- AGES 25-54

Assumes negligable occurrence of abortion to those of age 3

and below and age 55 and above.

26a 27a

. Tabie 4

Figure 3b Number and Percentage of Abortions

Percentage of Abortions with Reported Medical Complications

: : TOTAL # ABORTIONS (PERCENTAGE

with Gestation Age > 12 Weeks ae heey

ABORTIONS MEDICAL WITH

COMPLICATIONS MEDICAL

Percent COMPLICATIONS

H t 1975 10-17 1507 16 1.06

18-19 1758 25 1.42

20-24 2702 32 1.18

25-54 2161 26 1.20

1976 10-17 2060 11 0.53

18-19 2511 7 0.28

20-24 3643 20 0.55

25-54 2895 21 0.73

1977 10-17 2274 5 0.22

18-19 2693 . 0.22

20-24 4528 14 0.31

25-54 3529 1 0.31

1978 10-17 2186 “ 0.37

18-19 3054 19 0.62

20-24 5066 26 0.51

25-54 3872 19 0.49

1979 10-17 2308 3 0.13

18-19 3293 2 0.06

20-24 5683 4 0.14

\ : 25-54 4355 .

5 fe banned 1980 10-17 2327 . 0.26

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 i = eo

20-24 6054 4 0.13

25-54 4716 14 0.30

—— AGES 10-17 ~+- AGES 18-19 ,

Source: Raw data provided by the Minnesota Department of

“K- AGES 20-24 -B- AGES 25-54 Health. Table reflects abortions occurring in Minnesota,

with non-residents and women of unknown age excluded.

_ Assumes negligable occurrence of abortion to those of age 9

and below and age 55 and above.

28a

Table 4 (Continued)

Number and Percentage of Abortions

with Reported Médical Complications*

TOTAL ABORTIONS PERCENTAGE —

YEAR AGE NUMBER OF WITH OF ABORTIONS

ABORTIONS MEDICAL WITH

COMPLICATIONS MEDICAL

COMPLICATIONS

1981 10-17 1820 tt) 0.00

18-19 3064 8 0.26

20-24 6047 21 0.35

25-54 4881 11 0.23

1982 10-17 1564 10 0.64

18-19 2799 10 0.36

20-24 5963 38 0.64

25-54 5180 46 0.89

1983 10-17 1432 10 0.70

18-19 2547 20 0.79

20-24 5487 493 0.89

25-54 5012 51 1.02

1984 10-17 1395 14 1.00

18-19 2586 29 1.12

20-24 6032 62 1.03

25-54 5525 66 1.19

1985 10-17 1570 13 0.83

18-19 2531 12 0.47

20-24 6067 76 1.25

25-54 5812 60 1.03

1986 10-17 1545 8 0.52

18-19 2372 15 0.63

20-24 5724 48 0.84

25-54 6035 74 1.23

° Source: Raw data provided by the Minnesota Department of

Health. Table reflects ebortions occurring in Minnesota,

29a

Figure 4a

Number of Abortions

with Reported Medical Complications

80 . .

‘i £

3 a CY

: 2 Sree’

60 + : ir 8

ENACTMENT PERIOD ——> re *

40 ie

20 F. Xx , e*

ENJOINMENT

a = ._ j ~~!

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

—*e~ AGES 10-17

with non-residents and women

of unknown age excluded.

-% AGES 20-24

Assumes negligable occurrence of abortion to those of age §

and below and age 55 and above.

~+ AGES 18-19

~& AGES 25-54

with Reported Medical

Percent

30a

Figure 4b

Percentage of Abortions

Complications

ENACTMENT PERIOD:

Peete eT TT eee Tee STC TTT TTT TTT TET TTT ETT TT. Tee

-4

UE oocee--

0.4} f

0.24

: ENJOINMENT

. i ares

75 76 #77 78 9 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

—— AGES 10-17

“K- AGES 20-24

+- AGES 18-19

- AGES 25-54

8la

Table 5

Birth Rate .

for Different Regions of Minnesota

YEAR AGE MINNESOTA METROPOLITAN MINNEAPOLIS

MINNEAPOLIS**

1973 10-14 0.4 0.4 °

15-17 20.4 20.4 e

18-19 63.7 53.9 a

20-24 106.0 96.1 R

25-34 95.4 82.2 .

1974 10-14 0.3 0.3 ‘

15-17 18.1 18.1 .

18-19 64.5 57.4 ‘

20-24 109.3 106.0 °

25-34 97.8 83.3 :

1975 10-14 0.4 0.4

15-17 21.0 18.7

18-19 56.1 48.7

20-24 110.2 $1.3

25-34 $3.9 86.9

1976 10-14 0.4 0.4 1.7

15-17 19.7 18.2 36.7

18-19 52.9 47.0 48.8

20-24 104.5 85.0 62.3

25-34 93.6 85.8 67.9

1977 10-14 0.3 0.3 Seu

15-17 19.6 18.3 33.4

18-19 55.1 48.1 58.1

20-24 108.1 66.5 64.4

25-34 $8.6 83.6 72.9

* Rate per 1000 female population. Sources: Raw data

provided by the Minnesota and Minneapolis Departments of

Health. Non-residents and women of unknown age are excluded.

Minneapolis data were provided in a form unsuitable for

figuring rates for ages 35-44 or above.

” Metropolitan Minneapolis is defined as a seven-county

region including Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey,

Scott, and Washington Counties,

32a

Table 5 (Continued)

Birth Rate

for Different Regions of Minnesota®

YEAR AGE MINNESOTA METROPOLITAN MINNEAPOLIS

MINNEAPOLIS**

1978 10-14 0.4 0.4 1.3

15-17 17.8 16.0 35.4

18-19 55.6 51.7 61.5

20-24 106.6 85.3 63.2

25-34 100.3 $0.0 73.7

1979 10-14 0.3 0.4 1.7

15-17 17.8 17.6 39.7

18-19 56.9 52.6 56.3

20-24 110.0 68.4 67.8

25-34 102.8 91.9 74.6

1980 10-14 0.3 0.4 1.6

15-17 17.5 17.4 39.1

18-19 59.3 53.8 62.9

20-24 113.4 $2.3 71.3

25-34 104.7 95.3 77.5

1981 10-14 0.3 0.4 1.3

15-17. 17.5 17.2 41.2

18-19 59.1 53.9 65.0

20-24 112.4 94.0 71.5

25-34 105.8 98.9 62.7

1982 10-14 0.4 0.5 2.2

15-17 16.6 17.2 42.7

18-19 56.2 52.1 65.9

20-24 109.9 68.8 69.8

25-34 104.6 97.3 84.6

° Rate per 1000 female population. Sources: Raw data

provided by the Minnesota and Minneapolis Departments of

Health. Non-residents and women of unknown age are excluded.

Minneapolis data were provided in a form unsuitable for

figuring rates for ages 35-44 or above.

** wetropolitan Minneapolis is defined as a seven-county

region including Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey,

Scott, and Washington Counties.

33a

Table 5 (Continued)

Birth Rate

for Different Regions of Minnesota’

YEAR AGE MINNESOTA METROPOLITAN MINNEAPOLIS

MINNEAPOLIS**

1983 10-14 0.3 0.5 1.9

15-17 14.6 15.1 47.3

18-19 48.5 45.4 58.1

20-24 100.0 80.1 64.3

25-34 103.3 97.3 83.2

1984 10-14 0.3 0.5 1.3

15-17 16.1 17.4 54.1

18-19 48.7 45.7 63.1

20-24 97.4 79.5 66.4

25-34 106.6 102.3 85.9

1985 10-14 0.4 0.6 2.1

15-17 15.1 16.5 58.2

18-19 47.0 45.8 73.4

20-24 94.4 80.1 69.7

25-34 108.6 106.1 89.8

1986 10-14 0.4 0.5 2.0

15-17 15.6 17.8 62.2

18-19 42.6 44.0 81.2

20-24 86.6 74.2 70.6

25-34 107.6 106.3 87.5

1987 10-14 2.2

15-17 64.5

18-19 92.2

20-24 67.5

25-34 84.2

° Rate per 1000 female population. Sources: Raw data

provided by the Minnesota and Minneapolis Departments of

Health. Non-residents and women of unknown age are excluded.

Minneapolis data were provided in a form unsuitable for

figuring rates for ages 35-44 or above.

os Metropolitan Minneapolis is defined as a seven-county

region including Ancka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey,

Scott, and Washington Counties.

842,

Figure 5a

Birth Rate

for Different Regions of Minnesota

Ages 15-17

™ Rate per 1000 Female Population

‘

60 -

aad I :

ENACTMENT PERIOD =>

40 +

30 +

i : :

oaguon ote

10 S.. Li L - ' J. aN i = A. ‘

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

—*— MINNESOTA —+—- METRO MINNEAPOLIS > MINNEAPOLIS

Figure 5b

Birth Rate

for Different Regions of Minnesota

Ages 10-14

on Rate per 1000 Female Population

1.5-

0.5

OD. “Se, “a

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

100

70 |-

36a

Figure Sc

Birth Rate

for Different Regions of Minnesota

Ages 18-19

Rate per 1000 Female Population

ENACTMENT ENJOINMENT

i - L L — = ‘Nw L i m ~e

a ae

73 74 75 76 77 78

MINNESOTA

MINNEAPOLIS

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

—+— METRO MINNEAPOLIS

37a

Figure Sd

Birth Rate

for Different Regions of Minnesota

Ages 20-24

Rate per 1000 Female Population

120

ENACTMENT; ENJOINMENT

are, Ra CS

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

—*— MINNESOTA —+— METRO MINNEAPOLIS

— MINNEAPOLIS

38a

Figure Se

Birth Rate

for Different Regions of Minnesota

Ages 25-34

ia Rate per 1000 Female Population

ENJOINMENT

ENACTMENT

ae S ee |

73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

—*— MINNESOTA

—— MINNEAPOLIS

—+- METRO MINNEAPOLIS

Table 6

Birth Rate for Minneapolis Residents

by Age Group*

YEAR

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

Rate per

YEAR

1976

1977

1978

1879

1980

1981

1982

1983

1964

1985

1986

1987

NNN += @ Ne et ee

a ee” ee, ee

NO--@ONWOea@nN GW 4

10-14

62.

64.

63.

67.

71.

69.

64.

66.

6s.

70.

67.

AGES 15-17

20-24

waeaneuwvauww@ns @

36.

39.

35.

38.

39.

41.

42.

47.

54.

58.

62.

64.

OUNN KW SOHNE NZS

67.

72.

73.

74.

77.

82.

84.

83.

85.

89.

87.

84.

1000 female population.

AGES 18-19

en eoeo Qa

> a an _— oa >.

25-34

NUV@onenveaenw ws @

Source:

. . .

NNe&=-=+-8000 00+ @

Raw data

provided by the Minneapolis Department of Health. Data

provided in a from unsuitable for figuring rates for ages

35-44 or above.

40a 4la

Figure 6 Table 7

3 . . : Births to Mothers < 18 Years of Age

Birth Rate for Minneapolis Residents as Percentage of Total Births®

by Age Group MINNEAPOLIS U.S. MINNESOTA

1970 6.3

1973 4.6

Rate per 1000 Female Population 1974 4.2

100 : —- 1975 7.6 4.4

1976 6.2 4.2

+ 1977 5.9 3.9

ot eae / 1978 5.1 3.4

er =e * ae 1979 5.3 3.2

1980 4.7 5.8 3.0

1981 4.5 5.4 2.8

1982 4.3 5.2 2.6

1983 4.4 5.0 2.4

1984 4.4 4.8 2.5

1985 4.5 4.7 2.3

1986 4.8 4.8 2.5

1987 5.1 2.4

MINNEAPOLIS BY RACE

WHITE BLACK ASIAN/PACIFIC AMERICAN

ISLAND INDIAN

1976 4.0 15.3 0.0 18.9

1977 4.1. 13.7 1.4 13.9

1978 3.4 11.5 0.0 12.9

: : 1979 2.9 13.5 3.0 15.3

: : 1980 2.9 11.4 1.7 13.3

ss | ENJOINMENT 1981 2.6 11.4 4.6 13.0

— \ , eee és | 1982 2.3 11.0 5.0 11.0

0 ——— a ee 1983 2.2 11.0 4.9 13.7

76 77 #78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 1984 2.3 10.6 6.5 11.2

1985 2.2 10.4 7.4 11.1

1986 2.3 11.9 5.8 9.3

~& AGES 20-24 ~*- AGES 25-34 * sources: National Center for Health Statistics: Health,

United States, 1988. DHHS Pub. Wo. (PHS) 89-1232. Public

Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Mar. 1989. p.47. Minneapolis raw data provided by the

Minneapolis Department of Health. Data for some years not

available.

42a

Table 7 (Continued)

Births to Mothers < 18 Years of Age

as Percentage of Total Births’

UNITED STATES BY RACE

WHITE BLACK ASIAN/PACIFIC AMERICAN

ISLAND INOIAN

1970 4.8 14.7 3.3 7.5

1975 6.0 16.1 2.7 11.0

1980 4.5 12.2 1.7 8.8

1981 4.3 11.4 1.8 8.5

1982 4.1 11.1 1.8 8.0

1963 3.9 10.9 1.7 7.9

1984 3.7 10.6 1.8 7.4

1985 3.7 10.3 1.8 7.4

1986 3.7 10.4 1.9. 7.4

* sources: National Center for Health Statistics: Health,

United States, 1988. OHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 89-1232. Public

Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Mar. 1989. p.47. Minneapolis raw data providec by the

Minneapolis Department of Health. Oata for some years not

available.

48a

Figure 7a

Births to Mothers < 18 Years of Age

as Percentage of Total Births

Minneapolis, Minnesota, and U.S.

Percent

8 :

4 "

% ; em ENACTMENT PERIOD

6 =

5 aa

‘a.

“e..

oa ~ ENJOINMENT

ENACTMENT e. — * Xe \

2 L A. j i Jt L L Ni 7

70 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 na as 34 85 86 87

—+— MINNEAPOLIS * UNITES STATES ~G- MINNESOTA

44a

Figure 7b

Births to Mothers < 18 Years of Age

as Percentage of Total Births

by Race/Ethnicity

—_ Minneapolis and U.S.

Percent

a Qe ENACTMENT PERIOD

Sq" 8

zs. 4

10 peel 2 cscs omg on Oo

, a 3

z : a

$)- -————-- == 29.

DPriccn. = |

“Seam *-- "Se -

, Brae. %

70 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

—*— MINNEAPOLIS WHITE ~e- U.S. WHITE

—¥- MINNEAPOLIS ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLAND ye U.S. ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLAND

—%- MINNEAPOLIS AMERICAN INDIAN -K- U.S. AMERICAN IN DIAN

45a

Table 8

Percent Racial/Ethnic Enroliment

Minneapolis Public School District®

AMERICAN BLACK ASIAN HISPANIC

INDIAN

1971 3.0 8.8 0.5 0.7

1980 5.6 19.0 2.1 1.3

1981 5.8 21.3 5.4 1.3

1983 6.0 22.8 5.8 1.3

1984 6.3 24.1 6.2 1.4

1985 6.6 25.7 6.7 1.4

1986 6 -_—Cés«éS 8 26.9 7.3 1.5

1987 7.0 28.4 8.0 1.7

* source: Raw data provided in Racial-Ethnic Enro!] Iment

Trends in Twin Cities Area Schools, 1986-1987. Pub. No. 620-

88-115. Metropolitan Council, St. Paul, Minnesota.

46a

Figure 8 aa =

Percent Racial/Ethnic Enrollment |

Minneapolis Public School District |

Percent | 4

: s

. 4 ‘

. ’

‘ - 7

‘ " .

’ 7 m b

‘ “~ ,

’ * / ; -

. f r

‘ -

‘ : 4 /

‘ - ¥

‘ 3 ‘

| 7 4 bh

ts i

\ é

bs i’)

g ! 2 Se

\ ,

7 P % VW ev

3 s “ 5”

; P > . « v

ee ee er ee, So ee ; a , > Ay -

‘ . ; "

‘ . m :

{ rz

.) 4 ‘ t

: .

> ty .

‘ 5 a + b

: ¢ Pa

‘ v's a ty

- ‘

’ 2 . -

“ ar . 4 ‘

ee ee ee

ay?

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.