Amicus Curiae Brief — Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood

Fs

Je

No. 04-1144 ee U.S. |

Aus 3 - 2005

In The

Supreme Court of the Gnited

+

KELLY AYOTTE, ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE,

IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY,

Petitioner,

v.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF

NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND, ET AL.,

Respondents.

¢

On Writ Of Certiorari To The

United States Court Of Appeals

For The First Circuit

¢

BRIEF OF HARLON REEVES, INDIVIDUALLY,

AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF HIS MINOR

DAUGHTER AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT

OF PETITIONER AND IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL

¢

KELLY SHACKELFORD

Counsel of Record

JONATHAN M. SAENZ

HIRAM S. SASSER III

LIBERTY LEGAL INSTITUTE

903 East 18th Street, Suite 230

Plano, Texas 75074

(972) 423-3131

(972) 423-6570 (FAX)

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831

a a

r imc CLERK '

oe ry

i re 7 4

I.

II.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Lack of parental notification laws allow child

Se

Parental notification laws protect minors from

repeated sexual abuse, a universal principle

Parental notification is the least amount of

protection that a state can provide, protection

Any balance of harm of the right to an abortion

should be weighed in favor of protecting mi-

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASE LAW

Anderson v. State, 544 A.2d 265 (Del. 1988)............cccccceeees 8

Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979) ................000 10, 11, 12

Commonwealth v. Sasville, 616 N.E.2d 476 (Mass.

Rage. Ge. WEP ..ccccscossssevaccesesstnssnnennateiinaaa 8

Harlon Reeves, et al. v. West Side Clinic, Inc., Cause

No. 141-165086-96, 141st- Judicial District of

Pervemt Comber CRB GD .ccscessocscocensscsasinssessiniiasasmamanaian 5

Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) ............c0000008 12

Jane Doe v. Planned Parenthood of Central and

Northern Ariz., et al., No. CV 2001-014876, Order

of Partial Summary Judgment (Superior Ct.,

Ariz., Cty. of Maricopa, Nov. 26, 2002)...............c0s000000e 10

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) .........ceeeeceeeseeeee 11

Ohio v. Akron Center For Reproductive Health

68 oh., GBT GB. GB GaSe ccccestveseicntccvssetioniiaasaamaaan 3

Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979)...........cccccceeseesssesseeees 11

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) ............... 11

Planned Parenthood v. Camblos, 155 F.3d 352 (4th

CUR, BIG cnccccscccssescscsesctsidsctosspacedsuneinensieniaanisisnsnnannnnnnnn 12

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)...... 3,12

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

CRT UP accccccccssecasencesenssetnbdsnddsensunssuiieenaimnanaiaiannnasnnnnnnE 12

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)............. 11, 12

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) .........ccccccceeseeees 12

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) ..............000000 11, 12

lii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

STATUTES

TEX. FAM. CoDE ANN. §§ 33.001 et seq. (Vernon

iis scccrtenentnnnssnnesensscasscsescenoeecees 6

LAW REVIEWS

Teresa Stanton Collett, Issue In Vermont Law:

Protecting Our Daughters: The Need for the Ver-

mont Parental Notification Law, 26 VT. L. REV.

EES EL aC eT 7

SECONDARY SOURCES

American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on

Adolescence, Adolescent Pregnancy - Current

Trends and Issues: 1998, 103 PEDIATRICS 516

(1999), also available on the worldwide web at

<http:// www.aap.org/policy/re9828.html>.................. 4,5

1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES.................cccc0000 12

H.P. Boyer and D. Fine, Sexual Abuse as a Factor in

Adolescent Pregnancy and Child Maltreatment,

FAM. PLAN. PERSPECTIVES (1992)...........ccccccccceceeeeeeeeeeeeees 4

Patricia Donovan, Caught Between Teens and the

Law: Family Planning Programs and Statutory

Rape Reporting, 3 FAMILY PLANNING PERSPEC-

HP Gershenson, et al, The Prevalence of Coercive

Experience Among Teenage Mothers, J. INTER-

I Pes ie ED ccecccececccccnsscncsscscccnsccccesescssseccccncesees 4

Glendale Teen Files Lawsuit Against Planned

Parenthood, THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC, Sept. 2, 2001........ 10

2 JAMES KENT, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW............. 12

iv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Mike A. Males, Adult Involvement in Teenage

Childbearing and STD, LANCET 64 (July 8, 1995).......... 4

Sharon McBreen, Deputy Arrested On Sex Charges;

Sheriff Don Eslinger Fired Andre Demetri

Golden, Who Is Accused of Having An Affair with

a 15-Year-Old Girl; ORLANDO SENTINEL TRIBUNE,

National Right to Life: Polls on Requiring Parentai

Involvement in Minors’ Abortions April 28, 2005:

Poll results available at http://www.nrlc.org/feder ://

ccpa/ParentalPolls042904.htm!] (last visited Au-

CE G, GIGS cemseercassnnsienenmennnnntnnaninnintinnieiieaie 13

NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, Who

Decides?: The Status of Women’s Reproductive

Rights in the United States; Restrictions on Young

Women’s Access to Abortion (June 24, 2005) (http://

naral.org/yourstate/whodecides/trends/issues_young_

women.cfm (last visited August 3, 2005) ....................+. 14

Parental Notification of Abortion: Hearings on

H.218 Before the House Judiciary Comm., 2001-

2002 Legis. Sess. (Vt. 2001) (testimony of Nancy

Mosher, President and CEO of Planned Parent-

hood of Northern New England on April 16,

TEI canssenensnsennneassetnnnatenmemineiianiabiaiiiiiatntiniingemsaiiamaiabinctaienl 7

Colin Poitras, Privacy Rights Vs. Sexual Abuse; Two

Doctors Defend Decision Not to Report 11-Year-

Old’s Pregnancy, THE HARTFORD COURANT, Au-

Beth Taylor, Deputy May Avoid Prison In Sex Case:

The Seminole Deputy Has Agreed to Plead No

Contest to Having Sex With a 15-Year-Old Girl;

ORLANDO SENTINEL TRIBUNE, December 10, 1996.......... 10

1

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE'

Amicus is Harlon Reeves, individually, and as Next

Friend of his minor daughter.’ Mr. Reeves resides in Texas

and is the father of two daughters. One of his daughters, a

g.rl who is mentally challenged, was the unfortunate

victim of a child predator when she was only 12 and 13

years of age. As a mentally challenged young girl, she was

in desperate need of protection from the evils of this world,

such as protection provided by parental notice or parental

consent laws. This daughter, who the father requests only

be identified as Jane,’ was sexually assaulted on at least

two different occasions by a live-in boyfriend of her

mother, with whom Jane was living at the time. Mr.

Reeves and Jane’s mother were divorced at the time of the

sexual assaults suffered by Jane in approximately 1994

and 1995, while Jane was 12 and 13 years of age. Mr.

Reeves lived at a different residence than his daughter

Jane at the time Jane was sexually assaulted and was

horrified at the lack of notification to protect his daughter.

Twice the sexual assaults suffered by Jane resulted in

her becoming pregnant. Jane’s perpetrator forced her to

' The parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Their letters

of consent have been filed with the Clerk of this Court. Pursuant to this

Court’s Rule 37.6, none of the counsel for the parties have authored this

brief in whole or in part and no one other than amicus or its counsel

contributed money or services to the preparation and submission of this

brief.

* Due to the sensitive nature of this matter, Harlon Reeves

requests that his younger daughter remain unnamed in this brief and

in any reference to this brief.

* Due to the sensitive nature of this matter, Harlon Reeves

requests that his other daughter, who was sexually abused and

mentally traumatized, be referred to by the pseudonym, Jane, which is

not her real name.

2

have an abortion to terminate both pregnancies, abortions

which were performed at an abortion clinic in Fort Worth,

Texas. Neither of Jane’s parents were notified of either of

the abortions by the abortion clinic. If either of Jane’s

parents would have been notified of the abortion, the live-

in boyfriend would not have been able to continue his

sexual abuse of Jane and he would not have been able to

circumvent the parental rights of Jane’s parents. When

the parents finally realized the evil done by this man to

their defenseless daughter, the assaults and abortions had

already occurred. Jane’s perpetrator was subsequently

criminally prosecuted and was sentenced to approximately

30 years in prison for his crimes.

At the time when Jane was victimized, Texas had no

law requiring parental notification before the performing

of an abortion on a minor. Jane, being mentally chal-

lenged, was in the most vulnerable position of any minor,

yet there was no law to protect her. The lack of such law

allowed Jane to be repeatedly abused, and denied her

parents the ability to protect her from such an atrocious

crime. Jane is no longer a minor, but Mr. Reeves has

another daughter who is currently a minor. Mr. Reeves

knows first hand the devastation that can occur when

states do not require a parent to be notified of a minor's

request to have an abortion. Mr. Reeves also knows that

his younger daughter and other young girls across the

country could find themselves faced with the same type of

horror if this Court allows parental notification laws to be

struck down across the country.

+

ee eet

3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case presents an opportunity for this Court to

protect innocent young girls and the rights of their parents

to protect their daughters and stay informed of any medi-

cal attention they request. This Court has previously

upheld the right of states to require parental notification

before the performing of an abortion on a minor, express-

ing support for the role of parents in this crucial decision

and recognizing the benefit that comes from such parental

involvement.‘ Parental notification is the least amount of

protection that a state can provide regarding the interest

of safety and health of young girls. Parental notification

not only protects the rights of parents to fulfill their

responsibility to protect their daughters, it also provides

protection for minor girls who can be exploited.

Heinous criminals are taking advantage of the lack of

state laws that require parental notification for abortions

performed on minors, sexually abusing little girls and

forcing them to have abortions to conceal their crime. This

Court should protect these young girls and the right of

their parents to know to what their daughters are being

subjected. Otherwise, the lack of such parental notification

laws allow sexual predators to continue to rape and

devastate the lives of young girls, forcing them to have sex

and then forcing them to abort the life that has been

* Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 895 (1992), citing

Ohio v. Akron Center For Reproductive Health et al., 497 U.S. 502, 510-

519 (1990).

4

ARGUMENT

I. Lack of parental notification laws allow child

predators to prey on minors without the threat

of prosecution.

Men who prey on and sexually abuse minor girls are

aware that they can force a girl to have an abortion,

thereby covering up their crime. National studies on the

issue of minors being sexually abused and impregnated by

older adult men indicate that “[a]lmost two thirds of

adolescent mothers have partners older than 20 years of

age.” In California, researchers using a study of over

46,000 pregnancies by school-age minor girls discovered

that “71%, or over 33,000, were fathered by adult post-

high-school men whose mean age was 22.6 years, an

average of 5 years older than the mothers. ... Even among

junior high school mothers aged 15 or younger, most births

are fathered by adult men 6-7 years their senior. Men aged

25 or older father more births among California school-age

girls than do boys under age 18.” In fact, there is a collec-

tion of studies that have found that most teenage preg-

nancies are the result of male child predators’ sexual acts,

by adult men who are substantially older.’

* American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence,

Adolescent Pregnancy - Current Trends and Issues: 1998, 103 PEDIAT-

RICS 516, 519 (1999), also available on the worldwide web at <http:/

www.aap.org/policy/re9828 .html>.

* Mike A. Males, Adult Involvement in Teenage Childbearing and

STD, LANCET 64 (July 8, 1995).

" Id. citing HP Boyer and D. Fine, Sexual Abuse as a Factor in

Adolescent Pregnancy and Child Maltreatment, FAM. PLAN. PERSPECTIVES

at 4 (1992); and HP Gershenson, et al, The Prevalence of Coercive Experi-

ence Among Teenage Mothers, J. INTERPERS. VIOL. 204 (1989). “Younger

teenagers are especially vulnerable to coercive and nonconsensual sex.

(Continued on following page)

5

The case of Jane Reeves led to a parental notification

law in Texas. Mr. Reeves, individually and on behalf of his

daughter Jane, ultimately filed a lawsuit against the

abortion clinic that performed the two abortions on Jane,

when Jane was 12 and the next year when she was 13,

without prior consent or notification provided to Mr.

Reeves.* At the time of both of the forced abortions, Jane

had a low cognitive level, equivalent to that of an 8-year-

old. Before the first abortion, Jane was so scared and

traumatized that she vomited outside the clinic in the

bushes. Mr. Reeves found out about the two abortions from

an employee of the Texas Department of Protective and

Regulatory Services. The clinic grew suspicious about the

second abortion, but they still performed the abortion and

received payment, waiting until later to notify authorities.

An employee of the Texas Department of Protective

and Regulatory Services informed Mr. Reeves of its inves-

tigation and suggested that Jane be removed from her

mother’s home and either be placed in Mr. Reeves’ custody

or otherwise she would be sent to a foster home. The

lawsuit was favorably settled in 1998. The tragedy of Mr.

Reeves and his daughter Jane caught the attention of the

Texas Legislature and in 1997, a new law was proposed

that would require parental notification before an abortion

can be performed on a minor. Additionally, Mr. Reeves

testified in front of a Texas Senate committee, to voice his

Involuntary sexual activity has been reported in 74% of sexually active

girls younger than 14 years and 60% of those younger than 15 years.”

American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence, Adolescent

Pregnancy - Current Trends and Issues: 1998, 103 PEDIATRICS 516

(1999).

* See Harlon Reeves, et al. v. West Side Clinic, Inc., Cause No. 141-

165086-96, 141st Judicial District of Tarrant County (1997).

6

support of a parental notification law before an abortion

can be performed on a minor. The 1997 law was unsuccess-

ful, but the parental notification law was passed in Texas

in 1999, signed by then Governor Bush, and remains the

law today.’ Had such a law be in effect at the time of the

sexual abuse against Jane, the sexual abuse would not

have continued and at least one of Jane’s parents would

have been informed that Jane had been raped, thereby

putting an end to any further contact by the live-in boy-

friend sexual predator and Jane. Additionally, if such a

law had been in place, Jane would not have been subjected

to a second forced abortion, taking away Jane’s right to

choose life for her child, and get the advice, involvement

and protection of her parents.

Even though there were signs of trouble, the abortion

clinic performed the abortion a second time on Jane and

asked questions later. This type of nonreporting will likely

lead the sexual abuse to continue against the minor. These

abortion clinics have a pecuniary interest in performing

such abortions, making it unlikely that they will protect

young girls from child predators without a law that re-

quires clinics to notify parents that an abortion is to be

performed.

By not requiring parental notification, there is more of

an opportunity for sexual assault to go unreported to the

parents and to law enforcement authorities. Child preda-

tors may engage in sexual conduct with minor girls, and

then force them to have an abortion, without the parents

even finding out, when notification is not required. If child

predators knew that they could not hide their crime by

* Tex. FaM. CODE ANN. §§ 33.001 et seq. (Vernon 1999).

7

forcing the minor girl to have an abortion, they arguably

would be less likely to engage in such acts. On the con-

trary, these crimes against girls would be brought out into

the open if the parent is at the very least notified that the

daughter is seeking an abortion.

What is equally as tragic is that some clinics where

the abortions are being performed are hesitant to report

abortions for minor girls who have been sexually assaulted

by an adult man.” Also, such a girl, forced by her abuser,

can easily deceive the clinic’s staff, to avoid accurate

reporting of such crime.

Even more striking is that Planned Parenthood of

Northern New England, which is the largest abortion

provider in the state of Vermont and a party before this

Court, admitted that it has a “legal obligation to report

instances of sexual assault” but did not report such in-

stances." This information was uncovered as a result of

testimony before the Judiciary Committee of the Vermont

House of Representatives.” This testimony also revealed

that twelve girls under the age of sixteen had an abortion

in 2000 performed by Planned Parenthood, pregnancies

which arguably resulted from illegal sexual acts on the girl

” Patricia Donovan, Caught Between Teens and the Law: Family

Planning Programs and Statutory Rape Reporting, 3 FAMILY PLANNING

PERSPECTIVES 5 (1998).

" See Parental Notification of Abortion: Hearings on H.218 Before

the House Judiciary Comm., 2001-2002 Legis. Sess. (Vt. 2001) (testi-

mony of Nancy Mosher, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of

Northern New England on April 16, 2001); See also Teresa Stanton

Collett, Issue In Vermont Law: Protecting Our Daughters: The Need for

the Vermont Parental Notification Law, 26 VT. L. REV. 101, 120 (Fall

2001). -

- =

8

by an adult man.” Planned Parenthood’s representative

testified that Planned Parenthood did not notify the

authorities in any of these cases." This Planned Parent-

hood representative also could not identify any cases of

reported abuse in 2000." Based on this shocking informa-

tion, it is difficult to believe that young girls and their

parents can rely on abortion providers to act as a safe-

guard of protection from sexual predators and molesters.

Furthermore, the lack of reporting may make it more

difficult to prosecute the sexual abuser. The lack of report-

ing can lead to the fetal tissue from the abortion not being

preserved, making it nearly impossible to demonstrate

sexual contact by the alleged sexual abuser, making it

more possible to dismiss the case.”

II. Many others have suffered a similar fate as Jane.

Jane is not alone in her tragedy. Other young girls

have suffered through a similar ordeal. For instance, in

Bridgeport, Connecticut in 2002, a 75-year-old man,

Jimmy Kave, admitted to having sex with an 11-year-old

girl, but according to police, the man claimed that the girl

“enticed him.”” Further damage occurred when the minor

* Id.

4 Id.

* Id.

* Commonwealth v. Sasville, 616 N.E.2d 476 (Mass. App. Ct. 1993)

(commonwealth’s failure to preserve aborted fetus for examination by a

defendant charged with rape required the dismissal of the indictment

against the defendant). See also Anderson v. State, 544 A.2d 265 (Del.

1988) (court suggested that evidence of abortion tends to establish

penetration requirement for rape conviction).

” See Colin Poitras, Privacy Rights Vs. Sexual Abuse; Two Doctors

Defend Decision Not to Report 11-Year-Old’s Pregnancy, THE HARTFORD

COURANT, August 23, 2002, at Al.

9

girl appeared at the office of two doctors, who conducted a

test that revealed that “she might be pregnant,” but the

doctors never informed anyone, including the girl’s mother

of the possibility of sexual abuse.

Lawyers for the doctors, and the doctors themselves

argued that reporting of sexual activity of minors “violates

the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship” and “such a

broad interpretation of the state’s child abuse reporting

law could discourage sexually active minors from seeking

the important medical treatment and counseling they

might need.” In other words, counseling and confidential-

ity are more important than protecting minor girls as

young as 11 from repeated rape and molestation, allowing

the criminal to continue his deplorable acts. The doctors

also hid behind the argument that the “state’s mandatory

reporting laws in effect at the time only required doctors

to report possible child sexual abuse if it involved a par-

ent, caregiver, or person given access to a child by a parent

18

.

Thankfully, the Connecticut General Assembly

amended its reporting laws to make it absolutely clear

that “physicians are required to report all suspected child

abuse.” This story shows that young girls can continue to

be raped and molested repeatedly without a parent being

notified unless a state has a law that specificaily forces

such notification, with the threat of criminal prosecution.

If this Court strikes down the New Hampshire Parental

Notification law, it will call into question similar laws of

other states, making minor girls across our nation vulner-

able to the attacks of sexual criminals.

* Id.

* Id.

10

Another horrific sex assault of a minor occurred in

Seminole County, Florida, where a 30-year-old deputy

sheriff was charged with multiple counts of illegal sexual

activity with a child, a 15-year-old girl, which was later

dropped to one count of lewd and lascivious activity on a

minor after the deputy pleaded no contest to such act.”

The 15-year-old girl was impregnated by the then deputy

sheriff, and continually deceived the girl’s parents while

he continued to engage in such acts with their daughter,

later taking her to get an abortion to conceal his illegal

acts, without the parents’ knowledge.

Additionally, a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Ari-

zona was sued and ruled liable in civil court for failing to

report an abortion on a 12-year-old girl performed by the

clinic. The girl was impregnated by her twenty-three year

old foster brother. Thereafter, the girl remained at the

foster home, which led to her being raped and impreg-

nated a second time.”

These minor girls not only deserve to be protected

from such sexual assaults, but they also have a fundamen-

tal right to the protection and guidance of their parents.

See Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 637 (1979). In Bellotti,

* Sharon McBreen, Deputy Arrested On Sex Charges; Sheriff Don

Eslinger Fired Andre Demetri Golden, Who Is Accused of Having An

Affair with a 15-Year-Old Girl; ORLANDO SENTINEL TRIBUNE, June 14,

1996, at D1; See also Beth Taylor, Deputy May Avoid Prison In Sex

Case: The Seminole Deputy Has Agreed to Plead No Contest to Having

Sex With a 15-Year-Old Girl, ORLANDO SENTINEL TRIBUNE, December

10, 1996, at D3.

* Jane Doe v. Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Ariz.,

et al., No. CV 2001-014876, Order of Partial Summary Judgment

(Superior Ct., Ariz., Cty. of Maricopa, Nov. 26, 2002). See Glendale Teen

Files Lawsuit Against Planned Parenthood, THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC,

Sept. 2, 2001.

11

the Supreme Court stated, “the guiding role of parents in

the upbringing of their children justifies limitations on the

freedom of minors.” Jd. This Court stated the following:

Legal restrictions on minors, especially those

supportive of the parental role, may be important

to the child’s chances for full growth and matur-

ity that make eventual participation in a free so-

ciety meaningful and rewarding.

Belotti, 443 U.S. at 638-39. The prudent action to take

regarding parental notification is to uphold such laws and

allow the burden to be on the exercise of the exceptions to

such provisions.

III. Parental notification laws protect minors from

repeated sexual abuse, a universal principle

supported by this court.

This Court’s concept of family includes within it princi-

ples that support the notion that a parent should at least

have knowledge of any medical treatment of his/her minor

child.” Similarly, this Court has previously recognized that

™ See Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 602 (1979) (“Our jurispru-

dence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the

family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our

cases have consistently followed that course; our constitutional system

long ago rejected any notion that a child is ‘the mere creature of the

State’ and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally ‘have the

right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare [their

children] for additional obligations.’ Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S.

510, 535 (1925). See also Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 213 (1972);

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); Meyer v. Nebraska,

262 U.S. 390, 400 (1923) ... The law’s concept of the family rests on a

presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity,

experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life’s

difficult decisions. More important, historically it has recognized that

natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of

(Continued on following page)

12

parents have a “fundamental liberty interest in the care,

custody and management” of their children. Santosky v.

Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-54 (1982). Parental autonomy is

not delegated by the state, but rather resides in the very

nature of parenthood. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 232. Regarding the

legal heritage of parenthood apart from the power of the

state, this Court recognized that, “It is cardinal with us that

the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the

parents whose primary function and freedom include

preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor ~

hinder.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944)

(internal citations omitted). In fact, the need for parental

involvement, “is at its zenith when the decision as to which

parental involvement is urged is one — like the abortion

decision — with profound and enduring consequences not

merely for the physical well-being of the child, but for the

child’s spiritual, moral, and emotional development.”

their children. 1 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *447; 2 JAMES

KENT, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW *190”).

* Planned Parenthood v. Camblos, 155 F.3d 352, 368-69 (4th Cir.

1998) (“See Bellotti, 443 U.S. at 637-38, 640, See also Planned Parent-

hood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 103 (1976) (Stevens, J., concurring in

part and dissenting in part) (“Even if [the abortion decision] is the most

important kind of a decision a young person may ever make, that

assumption merely enhances the quality of the State’s interest in

maximizing the probability that the decision be made correctly and

with full understanding of the consequences of either alternative”);

Casey, 505 U.S. at 899-900 (explaining that waiting period required by

informed parental consent provision legitimately provided “the parent

or parents of a pregnant young woman the opportunity to consult with

her in private, and to discuss the consequences of her decision in the

context of the values and moral or religious principles of their family”);

Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 480 (1990) (Kennedy, J., concur-

ring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part) (describing

abortion decision as a “grave” one, and observing that “a girl of tender

years, under emotional stress, may be ill-equipped to make it without

mature advice and emotional support”) (quoting Bellotti, 443 at 641)”).

13

IV. Parental notification is the least amount of

protection that a state can provide, protection

that has wide support.

Parental notification is the least amount of protection

that a state can provide to shield young girls from sexual

assault by adult men. Parental notification not only

protects the rights of parents to fulfill their responsibility

to protect their daughters, it also provides protection for

minor girls who can be exploited. If the Court strikes down

this law, it will undoubtedly result in real harm to young

girls — allowing rapists and child molesters cover to

repeatedly abuse young girls and continue to hide their

tracks.

Numerous polls taken from 1998-2005 reveal support

for parental consent or notification laws regarding abor-

tion in the range of 73-83% of adults/registered voters

polled.” Additionally, pro-choice advocates agree that parents

should not only be notified, but be “involved” in the process

™* See National Right to Life: Polls on Requiring Parental Involve-

ment in Minors’ Abortions, April 28, 2005; Fox News/Opinion Dynamics

Poll, April 25-26, 2005-78% favor requirement of state law to notify at

least one parent or guardian before © ~inor has an abortion; Quinnip-

iac University Poll, March 2-7, 2005-75% favor requiring parental

notification be a minor can get an abortion; CNN/USA Today/Gallup,

January 10-12, 2003-73% favor requirement of parental consent before

minor can get any abortion; Wirthlin Worldwide, October 19-22, 2001-

83% favor requirement of notifying one parent before an abortion is

performed on a minor; Los Angeles Times, June 8-13, 2000-82% favor

requirement that minor get consent of at least one parent before having

an abortion; CBS News/NY Times, January 1998-78% favor parental

consent before minor can have an abortion. Poll results available

at http//www.nric.org/federal/ccpa/ParentalPolls042904 htm! (last visited

August 3, 2005).

14

when their minor daughters are pregnant.” Therefore, not

only is the concept of parental notification supported by

fundamental rights of parents guaranteed by the law,

parental notification is widely supported and thus should

be encouraged and remain codified into the law.

V. Any balance of harm of the right ‘s an abortion

should be weighed in favor of protecting mi-

nors from sexual predators.

If the Court is going to balance the right to an abor-

tion versus the safety and protection of minor girls from

sex assault and forced abortions, the Court should favor

protecting minor girls by the simple act of notifying a

parent of such abortion. The amount of time that a minor

has to wait, 48 hours, to notify a parent is a minimal

amount of time compared to the harm that can occur from

abuse or repeated abuse.

Mr. Harlon Reeves beseeches this Court to carefully

consider the far reaching implications of its decision.

Numerous federal courts across the country are jeopardiz-

ing the safety and welfare of minor girls and denying the

protection and guidance from their parents by striking

down essential parental notification laws regarding abor-

tion. These parents simply want to be notified before an

abortion is performed on their minor daughter. Granting

such a request sends a message to parents and young girls

* “NARAL Pro-Choice America believes that loving and responsi-

ble parents should be involved when their daughters face crisis

pregnancies.” NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, Who Decides?:

The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States;

Restrictions on Young Women's Access to Abortion (June 24, 2005)

(http://naral.org/yourstate/whodecides/trends/issues_young_women.cfm)

(last visited August 3, 2005).

15

alike, that parents have a vital role in the welfare of their

children, a responsibility and a duty to know and protect

their health, by, at the least having knowledge of a serious

medical operation such as an abortion.

+

CONCLUSION

This Court should reverse the decision of the court of

appeals below and affirm that the decision regarding

pregnancy is of great importance and deserves the atten-

tion of at least one parent to be notified before a minor

receives an abortion. In addition, this Court should be

mindful of the devastation that parents and minor girls

have suffered because of the lack of a parental notification

law regarding abortion, and the potential devastation that

will no doubt spread to the State of New Hampshire and

other states if these states are not permitted to have a

parental notification law regarding abortion. If a minor is

required to have in-person parental consent just to use

a tanning bed, then certainly mere parental notifica-

tion for a major medical procedure (abortion) is

constitutionally permissible, especially given the protec-

tion such notification affords against sexual predators. See

N.H. Rev. Stat. ANN. § 313-A:31 (2005).

(972) 423-3131

(972) 423-6570 (FAX)

Counsel for Amicus Curiae