By Rita McInerney

A ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Hall granting a preliminary injunction against implementation of the Georgia Parental Notification Act has disappointed pro-life advocates who struggled to gain passage of the measure in the 1987 Georgia Assembly.

The law was due to become effective July 1 of this year but was stalled when Planned Parenthood offices in Atlanta and east central Georgia filed suit claiming it restricts the right to privacy, due process and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14^th Amendment of the constitution.

The act makes it a misdemeanor for any person to perform an abortion on an unmarried, unemancipated minor unless she verifies that she has notified one parent of her intention to have an abortion; or obtains a waiver of the notification requirement from the Georgia juvenile courts.

In the ruling filed Sept. 8, Judge Hall declared that the state has the right to require a minor to notify her parents prior to having an abortion but he termed the verification procedures "unconstitutionally burdensome" and said they fail to provide alternative means of verification. He further ruled that Juvenile Court rules requiring the inclusion in certain court documents of the minor's name and Social Security number fail to guarantee her adequate anonymity in seeking judicial waiver by not requiring that the juvenile court record be sealed.

He disagreed, however, with Planned Parenthood's argument that the law and supplementary rules do not provide assurance that the courts will rule on the minor's petition for a judicial waiver of the parental notice requirement with sufficient expediency.

In the press release accompanying the ruling the judge suggested that:

- The interested parties could await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in a parental notification case from Illinois now pending and expected to be decided by June, 1988.

- Either or both parties may appeal the order to the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge estimated that a decision from the circuit court could be expected by September, 1988.

- The General Assembly amend the act to include more efficient means of verification currently used in other states, such as by mail or telephone.

- The anonymity protection can be insured by a court rule directing that juvenile court records of the judicial waiver procedure be sealed.

What now? That was the question being pondered by pro-life advocates who had been instrumental in pushing for passage of the bill in both houses of the legislature. While there was dismay over the ruling, there was at the same time, optimism that the judge's ruling was not a total defeat.

Mary Boyert, president of Georgia Right to Life, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in opposition to the Planned Parenthood suit, called the ruling a "temporary setback" and said that if the law was sent back to the legislature it would be important the lawmakers limit their efforts to amending the verification procedure rather than reworking all provisions of the measure.

Attorney Bill Hollberg, who worked with Georgia Right to Life in getting the bill through the Assembly, admitted disappointment over the ruling but said he was encouraged that Judge Hall only pointed out two problems which Hollberg said were "remediable."

Overall, Hollberg said, "the judge didn't bite on other arguments they presented. In the short run we have problems on our hands; in the long run we can do it."

In a statement issued by Ann Bailey and Marietta Pompillio of the archdiocesan Pro-Life office, the ruling was termed "a definite setback for the pro-life movement and a disappointment to all who spent long hours working on the parental notification requirement. We must not, however, lose faith, but realize this decision emphasized our need to stand up for our belief in the sacredness of human life and reinforces our efforts to work for a reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision."

Sheila Mallon, former head of the Pro-Life office, who worked for several years to get a pro-life bill enacted, expressed dismay that "We have to go back to the legislature once more." Like Mrs. Boyert and Mr. Hollberg, she sees the lawmakers' task as that of amending the law already on the books. "We feel that what we have is constitutional and the simplest way would be to amend it. And in the meantime, watch and see what the Supreme Court does (in the Illinois case)."

If the court upholds the Illinois law, she said, it could mean that pro-life advocates would go back to the legislature in the 1989 session to seek reinstatement of the stronger verification procedure, having a parent or accompanying adult with the girl at the abortion facility, rather than accepting mail or telephone verification.

What the next step will be on the part of Attorney General Mike Bowers is still being considered. Perry Michael, a member of his staff, said only "We are studying it (the judge's ruling) in an effort to decide what to do," When queried Sept. 10.