Plaintiffs, which include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the California Medical Association and other leading health care organizations, are asking the state high court to uphold the permanent injunction issued by the San Francisco Superior Court in 1992, and upheld by the state Court of Appeal on June 30, 1994, barring the state from enforcing the law. The rehearing is scheduled for Wednesday, May 7.

Although the California Supreme Court upheld the law in April 1996, the Court agreed the following month to rehear the case. By granting a rehearing, the Court vacated its earlier opinion, leaving in place the injunction which prevents enforcement of the consent law; the injunction remains in place now.

"We welcome the opportunity to present our arguments again in this profoundly important case. The Court's decision will affect the lives of thousands of teenagers," said ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret Crosby who will argue the case before the state high court.

"We hope that on reconsideration the Court will protect the right of all women, including teenagers, to decide whether to become parents, and will continue in its historic leadership in interpreting the California Constitution to safeguard private decisions from government intrusion," Crosby added.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (ACLU-NC), the National Center for Youth Law (NYCL) and the San Francisco law firm of Morrison & Foerster.

The challenged law restricting teenagers' access to abortion has never gone into effect because of court orders issued in this lawsuit, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) v. Lungren, filed on behalf of the 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., former Director of Family Planning at San Francisco General Hospital.

After five years of litigation and a month-long trial in October 1991, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Maxine Chesney issued a permanent injunction in June 1992 barring the state from enforcing the law. The Court ruled that the law violated teenagers' rights of privacy and equality under the California Constitution.

During the trial more than twenty expert witnesses -- including doctors and other health care providers who work with teenagers, psychologists and judges from states where similar laws are in effect -- testified about the disastrous effect of such laws on the physical, mental and emotional health of teenagers who are forced to confront unsupportive or even violent parents or navigate a formidable judicial system to obtain a court order for an abortion.

In addition, California physicians and counselors testified that the state's current system, which has been in place for twenty years, fully protects the health and well-being of minors and allows minors to obtain an abortion after insuring informed consent. National experts also testified that adolescents are capable of making informed decisions about their reproductive health care. Existing California law provides for many important medical decisions to be made by unemancipated minors without parental consent including those related to HIV testing, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and all aspects of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Judge Chesney ruled that the state had failed to justify the law's burden on teenagers' rights to privacy. In upholding Judge Chesney's decision, the Court of Appeal ruled that the statute "does not and cannot further the interests it purports to protect" -- the health of teenagers and the relationship of parents with their children. Indeed, the court noted, the challenged statute "injures those interests....[T]he judicial bypass procedure creates a substantial obstacle whose only effect is to hinder the minor from obtaining an abortion."

Plaintiffs argue that the competent counseling and health care by the current medical system, in place for more than two decades, better serves the welfare of pregnant teenagers.

The California Supreme Court has the final authority to decide this case because it involves the interpretation of the state Constitution.

Plaintiffs are represented by ACLU-NC staff attorneys Margaret Crosby and Ann Brick; Abigail English of the National Center for Youth Law's Adolescent Health Care Project; and Linda Shostak, David Robertson, Annette Carnegie and Lori Schechter of Morrison & Foerster who have litigated the case on a pro bono basis as cooperating attorneys for the ACLU-NC and the NCYL.