In the case American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997), health care providers challenged a California statute requiring that unemancipated pregnant minors obtain either parental consent or judicial bypass prior to an abortion procedure, arguing the requirement violated California's constitutional right to privacy.
This Virginia law provides the judges of the juvenile and domestic relations district court jurisdiction over petitions filed by a juvenile seeking judicial authorization for a physician to perform an abortion if a minor elects not to seek permission from an authorized person. This statute further specifies that after a hearing, a judge can issue an order authorizing a physician to perform an abortion, without the consent of any authorized person, if the judge finds that (i) the minor is mature enough and well enough informed to make her abortion decision, in consultation with her phy
A pregnant minor applied for judicial bypass to have an abortion without notifying her parents. The trial court denied her application, finding that she was neither mature nor well-informed enough to consent to an abortion without parental notification. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, finding that Doe showed that she was sufficiently well-informed. The trial court specifically denied Doe’s application because she was allegedly unaware of the intrinsic benefits of alternatives to abortion such as parenting and adoption.
In the case In re Jane Doe, a juvenile filed a petition in the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, seeking a judicial bypass to obtain an abortion without parental notification. The trial court denied the request, finding that she lacked sufficient maturity and information to make the decision independently.
A mother and daughter sued an abortion provider for having performed an abortion on the minor daughter without first obtaining her parents’ approval, which was in violation of Tennessee Code § 39-15-202. The daughter was 17 years and ten months old at the time. The trial court dismissed the complaint because the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the abortion rights of minors.
In Roe v. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, 122 Ohio St.3d 399 (2009), the parents of a minor who had obtained an abortion sued Planned Parenthood, alleging that the procedure was performed illegally without the required parental notification. During discovery, the plaintiffs sought medical records and abuse reports concerning other minors who had received abortions at the clinic over the previous ten years. Planned Parenthood refused to produce those records, citing physician–patient privilege.
In State v. Planned Parenthood the Alaska Supreme Court struck down the state's Parental Consent Act, which forced minors to obtain parental consent before seeking an abortion, on the grounds that it violated the privacy protection guaranteed by the Alaska Constitution.
