American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren

• Decision Date: 04 April 1996
• Docket Number: No. S041459,S041459
• Citation: 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 201,912 P.2d 1148,12 Cal.4th 1007
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: Previously published at 12 Cal.4th 1007 12 Cal.4th 1007, 912 P.2d 1148, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2338, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3865 AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Daniel E. LUNGREN, as Attorney General, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Page 201

51 Cal.Rptr.2d 201

Previously published at 12 Cal.4th 1007

12 Cal.4th 1007, 912 P.2d 1148, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2338,

96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3865

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Daniel E. LUNGREN, as Attorney General, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. S041459.

Supreme Court of California.

April 4, 1996.

Rehearing Granted May 22, 1996.

Appeal from the Superior Court, San Francisco County, No. 884574; Maxine M. Chesney, Judge

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Robert L. Mukai, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charlton G. Holland, III, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie Wald and Ralph M. Johnson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendants and Appellants.

Larry P. Arnn, Edward J. Erler, Claremont, Ernest O. Vincent, Irvine, Samuel B. Casey, Anaheim, Frank J. Fisher, San Francisco, Anne J. Kindt, Granada Hills, William P. Clark, Paso Robles, Alister McAlister, Wilton, Clarke D. Forsythe, Chicago, IL, Paul Benjamin Linton, Northbrook, IL, Reed & Brown, Stephen W. Reed and Michael J. Coppess, Pasadena, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Appellants.

Abigail English, Oakland, Margaret C. Crosby, San Francisco, Carol Sobel, Los Angeles, Morrison & Foerster, Linda E. Shostak, Annette P. Carnegie and Lori A. Schechter, San Francisco, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Louise H. Renne, City Attorney (San Francisco), Paula Jesson, Deputy City Attorney, Dawn M. Schock, Mary Ann Soden, Long Beach, Mark I. Schickman, Amitai Schwartz, San Francisco, Jone Lemos Jackson, Mendocino, Renee Nordstrand, Encino, Jean A. Martin, Santa Monica, Jenny E. Skoble, Los Angeles, Catherine A. Porter, Oakland, Janine Reagan, Fresno, Elizabeth Mohr, Elizabeth E. Bader, Gilbert Gaynor, Geraldine Jaffe, San Francisco, Robert F. Kane, Redwood City, Joseph R. Grodin, Farella, Braun & Martel, Ann G. Daniels, Jill A. Thompson, Claudia A. Lewis, San Francisco, Steel, Clarence & Buckley, Nanci Clarence, San Francisco, Martin Guggenheim, Merrick, NY, McCutchen, Doyle & Enersen, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Leslie G. Landau, Brandt Andersson, Walnut Creek, Beth H. Parker, Hope A. Schmeltzer, San Francisco, Shashikala Bhat, San Jose, Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, Newport Beach, Ethan P. Schulman, San Francisco, Lewis, D'Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard and Paula F. Henry, Costa Mesa, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

MOSK, Justice.

In this case, we must determine whether Assembly Bill No. 2274, 1987-1988 Regular Session, which prohibits unemancipated minors from obtaining abortions without either the consent of a parent or judicial authorization, is valid under article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution. The trial court declared the law invalid, as violating the rights to privacy and equal protection of unemancipated minors who seek to terminate their pregnancies, and permanently enjoined its enforcement. The Court of Appeal affirmed. Because we conclude that Assembly Bill No. 2274 is constitutional, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I.

Enacted by the Legislature in 1987, Assembly Bill No. 2274 amends former Civil Code section 34.5 (now Fam.Code, § 6925) to exclude abortion from the medical procedures for which an unemancipated minor may give consent without "disaffirmance because of minority." (Fam.Code, § 6921.) ¹ It also added former section 25958 to the Assembly Bill No. 2274 includes a judicial bypass provision, with the following requirements.

                [912 P.2d 1152] Health and Safety Code, providing that "[e]xcept in a medical emergency requiring immediate medical action, no abortion shall be performed upon an unemancipated minor unless she first has given her written consent to the abortion and also has obtained the written consent of one of her parents or legal guardian."  (Former Health & Saf.Code, § 25958, subd.  (a), repealed Stats.1995, ch. 415, § 161, now at Health & Saf.Code, § 123450, subd.  (a).) 2
                [912 P.2d 1153]  If an unemancipated minor's parent or guardian is unavailable or refuses consent, or if the unemancipated minor elects not to seek consent, she may file a petition in the juvenile court.  (Health & Saf.Code, § 123450, subd.  (b).)  The court must assist her, or a person she designates, in preparing the petition and notices;  it must also advise her that she has a right to court-appointed counsel, and it may appoint a guardian ad litem.  (Ibid.)  A hearing must be set within three days of filing the petition.  (Ibid.)  At the hearing, the juvenile court must determine whether the unemancipated minor is "sufficiently mature and sufficiently informed to make the decision on her own regarding an abortion."  (Id., subd.  (c)(1).)   If it finds that she is, and that she has consented on that basis, it must grant the petition.  (Id., subd.  (c)(1).)   If it determines that she is not, it must grant the petition if an abortion would be in her "best interest," but otherwise deny the petition.  (Id., subd.  (c)(2).)
                

The Judicial Council adopted rules and developed forms to implement the judicial bypass provisions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 240; Cal. Standards Jud.Admin., § 23.) Those rules require, inter alia, that the hearings "be conducted informally in the chambers of a judge of the superior court, sitting as a juvenile court." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 240(e).) Petitioner may, if she desires, be accompanied by a "support person" and "one or more parents or a guardian." (Ibid.) The hearing "may be conducted immediately if a courtroom or chambers is available; otherwise it shall be scheduled and conducted not more than three calendar days after the date of filing." (Id., rule 240(d).) If the court grants the petition, it must "immediately provide petitioner with two certified copies of the Order Authorizing Abortion Without Parental Consent and the Confidential Affidavit of Minor" and explain to petitioner that, to establish her identity, she should take one copy of each document to the provider of any abortion. (Id., rule 240(g).) If the court denies the petition, it must make "findings of facts and state the evidence supporting each finding in its order of denial." (Id., rule 240(h).) Moreover, if the court denies the petition, it must advise the petitioner of her right to appeal, that the appeal will be decided within five court days of filing the notice of appeal, that she is entitled to an attorney, and that the appeal and the attorney will not cost her or her parents or guardian any money. (Id., rule 240(i).) The court must immediately appoint counsel if petitioner has not been represented at the hearing. (Ibid.)

Assembly Bill No. 2274 was to become effective January 1, 1988. Before that time, in November 1987, plaintiffs American Academy of Pediatrics, California District IX; the California Medical Association; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX; Planned Parenthood of Alameda San Francisco; and Philip Darney, M.D., sought declaratory and injunctive relief, on the ground that the legislation violates the right to privacy under article I, section 1 of the California Constitution.

In December 1987, the superior court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of any provision of Assembly Bill No. 2274. The People appealed. In October 1989, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting issuance of the preliminary injunction and remanded for trial. ³ In October and November 1991, the superior court conducted a 16-day trial, without a jury. Twenty-five expert witnesses testified, including physicians, psychologists, lawyers, counselors, and judges; an additional six expert witnesses were heard by deposition.

In June 1992, the trial court issued a lengthy statement of decision and a judgment declaring Assembly Bill No. 2274 unconstitutional and permanently enjoining its enforcement. Specifically, it ruled that the legislation violates the rights to autonomy and informational privacy under article I, section 1 and the right of equal protection under California Constitution article I, section 7.

The People appealed from the judgment. While the appeal was pending, we established,

                [912 P.2d 1154]  in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.  (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633 (Hill ), the standard for deciding claims under the state constitutional right to privacy.  The Court of Appeal concluded that "although the superior court could not and did not specifically employ the approach established in Hill, its decision remains valid."   It affirmed the judgment on the ground that Assembly Bill No. 2274 violates an unemancipated minor's right to autonomy privacy.  It declined to decide whether it also violates her rights to informational privacy or to equal protection.  We granted review
                

II.

In resolving the present challenge to Assembly Bill No. 2274 under the California Constitution, we are bound by the " 'incontrovertible conclusion that the California Constitution is, and always has been, a document of independent force.' " (Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. Myers (1981) 29 Cal.3d 252, 261, 172 Cal.Rptr. 866, 625 P.2d 779.) Thus, although we may derive guidance from the numerous decisions of the United States Supreme Court concerning comparable statutes, we are not bound by its determinations. ⁴ Just as the rights guaranteed by the California Constitution are explicitly "not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution," (Cal. Const., art. I, § 24), our interpretation of those rights, including the right to privacy, has never been dependent on analogous federal decisions.

Nor are the constitutional provisions identical. In 1972, the electors added the explicit right of "privacy" to the other inalienable rights enumerated in article I, section 1 of the state Constitution; "[t]he federal constitutional right of privacy, by contrast, enjoys no such explicit constitutional status." (...