PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASS'N OF ATLANTA A. v. Harris
| Decision Date | 11 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | 1:87-CV-1405-RHH.,Civ. A. No. 1:88-CV-1159 |
| Citation | 691 F. Supp. 1419 |
| Parties | PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF the ATLANTA AREA, INC., Planned Parenthood of East Central Georgia, Inc. and Orrin Moore, M.D., individually and on behalf of their minor patients and all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Joe Frank HARRIS, Governor, individually and in his official capacity, Defendant. PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION OF the ATLANTA AREA, INC., and Planned Parenthood of East Central Georgia, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Joe Frank HARRIS, Governor of the State of Georgia, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Margie Pitts Hames, Robert L. Goldstucker, Nall, Miller, Owens, Hocutt & Howard, Elizabeth Joan Appley, Atlanta, Ga., Dara Klassel, Beth Otten, Roger K. Evans, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, New York City, for Planned Parenthood Ass'n of the Atlanta Area.
Margie Pitts Hames, Robert L. Goldstucker, Atlanta, Ga., for Planned Parenthood of East Cent. Georgia.
Michael J. Bowers, H. Perry Michael, William C. Joy, Kathyn L. Allen, State Atty. General's Office, Atlanta, Ga., for Jose Frank Harris, Governor.
Plaintiffs in this civil rights action seek relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on the grounds that the Georgia Parental Notification Act, as amended, and implementing rules unduly restrict their right to privacy, due process and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiffs, providers of abortions and abortion-related services filed this class action, 1:87-CV-1405-RHH ("Planned Parenthood I"), seeking relief against the Georgia Parental Notification Act (the "original Act"), which requires unemancipated, unmarried minors to notify one parent of their intention to terminate their pregnancies or to bypass the parental notification requirement and petition the juvenile court for waiver of that requirement and its implementing rules. Ga. Off'l Code Ann. §§ 15-11-5 and XX-XX-XXX et seq. (1987).
On September 8, 1987, this court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the original Act. Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Atlanta Area v. Harris, 670 F.Supp. 971 (N.D.Ga.1987) (Hall, J.). The court reasoned that "(1) the verification procedures of the Act are unconstitutionally burdensome and fail to provide adequate alternative means of verification; (2) the newly promulgated Juvenile Court rules requiring the inclusion on certain court documents of the minor's name and social security number fail to guarantee that minor constitutionally adequate anonymity in seeking judicial waiver by not requiring that the juvenile court record be sealed." 670 F.Supp. at 994.
The parties appealed that order to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. During the 1988 session of the Georgia General Assembly, the Georgia legislature passed Senate Bill 621 amending the Act which was signed by the Governor as Act 1229. The effective date of that amendment is July 1, 1988.
On May 27, 1988, plaintiffs providers of abortions and abortion-related services and a physician, filed this class action, 1:88-CV-1159-RHH ("Planned Parenthood II"), challenging the Georgia Parental Notification Act, Ga. Off'l Code Ann. §§ 15-11-5 and XX-XX-XXX et seq., as amended (the "amended Act") and implementing rules of court.
On June 16, 1988 the Eleventh Circuit remanded the original action to this court for further proceedings. Defendant has moved this court to consolidate the two cases. As the two present suits relate to the same statute and questions of law, the court GRANTS defendant's motion and consolidates them into one action. By so doing, the court also makes its previous orders entered in 1:87-CV-1405-RHH applicable to 1:88-CV-1159-RHH as well as the entire record of that case, and vice versa.1
Plaintiffs have now moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the amended Act. A hearing was held June 29, 1988 at which time the parties had the opportunity to make legal arguments and introduce evidence supportive of their respective positions. The court, by order entered June 29, 1988, temporarily restrained the function of the amended Act pending this court's consideration and ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is currently before the court for decision.
The amendments to the Act change the verification procedures to repeal the requirement that an "accompanying adult" verify that parental notification has taken place and offer three other options as forms of verification: First, a minor may furnish a statement, signed by a parent, guardian, or person standing in loco parentis, stating that person has been notified that an abortion is to be performed on that minor. § 15-11-112 (a)(1)(A). Second, the physician or agent may give at least 24 hours' "actual notice, in person or by telephone" to such person. § 15-11-112(a)(1)(B).2 Third, the physician or agent may give written notice by "regular mail" to that person. § 15-11-112(a)(1)(C).3 In the case of mail and telephone notice, the amended Act imposes a 24-hour waiting period from the time of notice, or deemed notice, before the provider may perform the abortion.
The original Act provided that a waiver hearing be held by the juvenile court within three days of the filing of the petition, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. The original Act mandated that the juvenile court render its decision within 24 hours of the conclusion of the hearing. The court in Planned Parenthood I specifically read this provision to mean that if the juvenile court failed to act within these time limits, the waiver petition be deemed denied and immediately appealable to the Georgia Court of Appeals. 670 F.Supp. at 990, 990 n. 24.
The amended Act specifies that if the hearing is not held within the three days prescribed or if the juvenile court fails to rule within the 24 hours mandated, the minor's petition shall be deemed granted. §§ 15-11-113; XX-XX-XXX(d).
The amended Act provides venue for judicial waiver in the juvenile court of any county in Georgia. § 15-11-114(d). The amended Act also provides that the juvenile court assist the minor in the preparation of the waiver petition and the notices required to be filed with the juvenile court. § 15-11-112(b).
The amended Act provides for the sealing of the juvenile court records and adds a requirement that the name, address or social security number of the minor not be disclosed. § 15-11-114(b); 114(d); 114(e).
In response to the amended Act's request that the appellate courts of the State of Georgia issue such rules as are necessary to implement the statute, the Georgia Supreme Court adopted the recommendations of the Council of Juvenile Court Judges of Georgia and amended the Uniform Juvenile Court Rules relating to the anonymity of the minor seeking judicial waiver. Rule 23.6 now provides that the juvenile court's order be styled in the same manner as the petition and shall contain a physical description of the minor. Rule 23.6, Uniform Juvenile Court Rules. Rule 23.8 was added to provide that the court not disclose any information concerning a case arising under the Georgia Parental Notification Act or permit any access to the file except by the minor, the minor's next friend or her attorney. Rule 23.8, Uniform Juvenile Court Rules. Rule 23.9 was added to provide that in the event of an expedited appeal from the denial by a juvenile court of a minor's waiver petition, the juvenile court shall insure complete anonymity of the minor by using only her initials in the record transmitted to the appellate court and shall not disclose her name, address, birth date or social security number in the record. Rule 23.9, Uniform Juvenile Court Rules.
The court will disclose and discuss other relevant portions of the amended Act and Rules as necessary to the disposition of the current motion.
The court, in its order preliminarily enjoining the original Act, set forth the appropriate standards of constitutional review which the court will not repeat here. See Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Atlanta Area v. Harris, 670 F. Supp. at 982-985. Suffice it to say that the Supreme Court has held that a statute requiring parental involvement is constitutional where it does not "unduly burden" a minor's right to an abortion. Id. at 985. The question before this court now, as it was in that previous facial challenge to the Act, is whether the Georgia Parental Notification Act is narrowly tailored to promote the state's significant interest in promoting parental consultation prior to the abortion decision so as not to "unduly burden" that right. Specifically, this court must determine whether the amendments to the Act and Rules correct the constitutional defects identified by this court, create new difficulties, or possibly fail to address deficiencies not explicitly dealt with by this court in its previous order.4
The potential defects with the amended Act and Rules as challenged by plaintiffs in their briefs and as raised by plaintiffs and the court at the hearing include, among others: (1) the failure of the amended Act or Rules to provide tangible authorization to the provider that the juvenile court has failed to hold a timely hearing or timely issue its order in order that the abortion may proceed; (2) the requirement of the Uniform Juvenile Court Rules that for all petitions an "intake officer" be appointed to make a preliminary determination as to whether the waiver petition shall be filed; (3) the provision on the waiver petition form and in the Uniform Juvenile Court Rules for a guardian ad litem to be appointed; (4) the failure of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Atlanta Area, Inc. v. Miller
...amendments did not cure the Act's constitutional defects, again sued to enjoin its operation. See Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Harris, 691 F.Supp. 1419 (N.D.Ga.1988) (Planned Parenthood II ). On June 16, 1988, a panel of this court remanded Planned Parenthood I to the district court, which, ......