The ruling of the Supreme Court came in a lawsuit, American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, which was argued before the state high court on May 7 by ACLU of Northern California staff attorney Margaret Crosby.

"This decision reaffirms the California Constitution's powerful protection for reproductive decisions, and in addition reaffirms the California Constitution's historic protection for the privacy rights for all people of all ages," said Crosby.

"We are pleased that this court, after rehearing arguments in this case, looked beyond the myths, beyond the stereotypes, beyond the misconceptions, to evaluate this law based on the best scientific evidence available," Crosby added. "This is in the finest tradition of judicial review. The court fulfills its obligation to safeguard fundamental rights by putting the government to the task of proving that it has compelling justifications for invading citizens' fundamental rights.

"For the past 25 years, an entire generation of young women has been able to obtain reproductive health care in California," Crosby said at a news conference here. "Today's decision preserves the right of future generations to make one of life's most fundamental decisions: whether to bear a child."

The medical care provider organizations who challenged the law, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Planned Parenthood and the California Medical Association, were at the press conference as were their attorneys from the National Center for Youth Law and the law firm of Morrison & Foerster.

Ten years ago, the Legislature passed a law requiring every teenager under 18 to obtain the written consent of a parent or a court order for abortion.

"That law, fortunately, has never taken effect in California because of court orders issued in this case," explained Crosby. "Today's ruling ensures that the law will never take effect. The consequences are important for the health of young women, for the reproductive rights of all women, and for the privacy rights of all Californians."

"The Court's decision," said Abigail English of the National Center for Youth Law, "is critically important for the welfare of the state's young women.

"We have had 15 years of experience with laws mandating parental involvement in adolescents' abortions in other states," English added. "These laws, which may sound benign, inflict harm on the most vulnerable young women: teenagers from unhappy homes. Studies have shown that most pregnant teenagers do consult their parents -- without being forced to by law.

"But for many adolescents, revealing a pregnancy would produce not counsel but catastrophe. Some families simply cannot bear the stress of this explosive news," English added. "A law mandating parental consent, therefore, erects a barrier which a pregnant teenager must surmount by one of several treacherous routes: she may travel to another state with more enlightened health care policies; she may attempt an abortion without professional help; she may become a parent before she is ready, or she may go to court to try to persuade a judge to grant her permission for an abortion.

"Laws requiring parental involvement for abortion therefore undermine the very goal they purport to advance: the health of young women," she concluded.

"What has been a failed experiment in other states would have been a nightmare in California," Crosby said.

California has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the nation. Approximately 30,000 adolescents under 18 have abortions in this state every year.

In 1987, a legislative analysis of California's teen abortion bill estimated that 11,000 pregnant teenagers would require court orders authorizing abortion every year. This state's teenage abortion docket would be spread through 58 counties, over 60 languages, over hundreds of miles.

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

The 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.

History of the Litigation

The 1987 law restricting teenagers' access to abortion has never gone into effect because of court orders issued in this lawsuit, American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, filed in 1987 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 20 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 20 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, on June 30, 1994, 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 argued 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.

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 prevented enforcement of the consent law.

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