Local News Archive
Print Issue: July 16, 1987
Federal Judge Delays Start Of Georgia Notification Law
|
By Rita McInerney Court action has delayed implementation of the Georgia parental notification law which requires females under 18 to notify their parents before getting an abortion. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hall issued a temporary restraining order delaying the start of the law by at least 16 days at a hearing held Tuesday, June 30, in the Richard Russell federal building. The law was to have become effective July 1. The Judge issued the temporary restraining order after hearing arguments on the lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood chapters of Atlanta and Augusta challenging the constitutionality of the law. A hearing on a preliminary injunction was scheduled for Thursday, July 16 at 9:30 a.m. In his opening remarks Judge Hall said the hearing had been called not to debate the pros and cons of abortion or to guess what the U.S. Supreme court might do in the fall term regarding a challenge to another State's parental notification law under review. The state of Georgia was interested in protecting the immature minor and the question for him was "Have they done it properly?" He said, "The court has grave concerns," citing a statute that concerns rules on confidentiality and expedited appeal issued by the Georgia appellate court. Dara Klassel, lawyer for Planned Parenthood, argued that the parental notification law does not protect the anonymity of the minor who seeks a court waiver of the requirement to notify her parents. In a case where a court waiver is sought in the absence of the signed affidavit of notification by a parent, the minor's Social Security number is required along with her initials. This, she claimed, does not protect the minor's anonymity. She also claimed that the judicial alternative process could take as long as six days before the waiver could be granted. She claimed this would place undue burdens on the minor because it would involve travel expenses and delays. She said 96 percent of the minors must go the Savannah, Columbia, Augusta or Atlanta for abortions. In many cases she said, this involves travel of at least 100 miles on three separate occasions. Patricia Downing, an assistant attorney general, defending the law for the state of Georgia, said the statute for the new law clearly states that all juvenile court procedures must protect the anonymity of the minor who does not wish to inform her parents of the planned abortion. This includes closed hearings and the sealing of court records. She said the parental notification law does not provide the parent with a veto over the minor's right to an abortion. If the parent will not accompany the minor to the abortion clinic and sign an affidavit necessary before the abortion is performed, the law, she argued, provides that an accompanying adult could "theoretically be a person from the abortion clinic." She disputed the claim by Ms. Klassel that obtaining a court waiver could take up to six days, saying that it is "very possible the process could take place all in the same day." After hearing arguments for more than an hour, Judge Hall issued the temporary restraining order based on an "uncertainty of the rules." An attorney who had input into the writing of the law, which passed the General Assembly last session, said he feels optimistic about it being upheld in district court. He is William Hollberg, legislative director for the Georgia Right to Life chapter for three years. But he said the granting of a preliminary injunction by Judge Hall would stop the law from going into effect indefinitely. The state could then appeal the injunction through the federal appellate system, in this instance the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, he said. If the injunction is granted, "We will be looking at a couple of years in the 11th Circuit Court." Mary Boyert, executive director of Georgia Right to Life, said her organization was not surprised by the challenge from Planned Parenthood, but "more or less expected it." "We still feel comfortable that the bill was written with the U.S. Supreme Court guidelines in mind and that it will hold up in court. We are supporting the governor's office and the attorney general's office in their defending of the bill. We encourage people to let them know of their support."
|









