Reining In Abortions for Minors

By Andrea Sachs

Since its earliest days, the Reagan Administration has made no secret of its desire to appoint federal judges who oppose abortion. Early last week that strategy paid off. In a 7-to-3 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a Minnesota law that requires women under 18 who want abortions to notify both parents or get approval from a judge. Six of the seven judges in the majority were Reagan appointees.

Four days later, however, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declared that a similar law in Ohio was unconstitutional. If either of the conflicting decisions is taken to the Supreme Court, it will be a further test of the Administration's strategy. In his two terms, the President has designated three of the nine high-court Justices.

Half the states have parental-notification laws but most, like Ohio, have not enforced their statutes because of legal challenges. Of the ten states with such laws in force, only Minnesota requires notification of both parents, regardless of divorce, separation or desertion. Judge John Gibson of the Eighth Circuit, writing for the majority, rejected the argument that Minnesota's requirement would often add to family problems: "Although some parents may be abusive, or at best unhelpful to their minor child faced with the decision whether to have an abortion, that is hardly a reason to discard the pages of experience teaching that parents generally do act in their child's best interests."

In his dissent, Chief Judge Donald Lay observed that "there is more than a little irony" in the notion that requiring both parents to be notified promoted "family integrity." Some 42% of all Minnesota minors, he pointed out, do not live with both biological parents.

While the Ohio ruling offered prochoice advocates some relief, they remained alarmed by the Minnesota decision and the prospect of future restrictive abortion rulings by Reagan appointees, who now constitute nearly half of all federal judges. "Even though the President was unable to ban abortions during his time in office, he has left behind a dangerous legacy in our courts," says Kate Michelman, executive director of the National Abortion Rights Action League in Washington.

Beyond their unhappiness with the Minnesota ruling, abortion-rights groups are even more concerned about the possibility of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last December, before the newest Justice, Anthony M. Kennedy, joined the bench, the court split 4 to 4 in reviewing an Illinois law similar to Minnesota's notification statute. Though Kennedy's judicial career yields few clues to his view on abortion, prochoice groups fear that he will provide a fifth, and deciding, vote in favor of limiting the 1973 landmark abortion decision, Roe v. Wade.

If the Minnesota ruling is appealed, it will be the first challenge to a parental-notification law to reach the high court with evidence about the law's actual effects on teenagers. In Minnesota the impact has been dramatic. In the nine years before the statute was enacted, the birthrate for girls 15 to 17 years old in Minneapolis increased 2%. Over the next five years, the rate leaped almost 51% -- a strong signal that teenagers are finding it harder to choose abortion.

With reporting by Marc Hequet/St. Paul and Wayne Svoboda/New York