Anspach v. City of Philadelphia: Minors Consent

Week-4 Minors Consent
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Week-4 Minors Consent
TQ 4.1. Anspach v. City of Philadelphia: What is the basis of the parents’ constitutional claim? Why does the court reject their claim? Why does the court discuss the case of Doe v. Irwin?
In Anspach versus the City of Philadelphia (2007), the parents' constitutional claim was that the clinic violated their constitutional rights to parental guidance and bodily integrity. The parents cited a violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Clause protects the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions regarding their children's care, custody, and control. Melissa's parents alleged that the Appellees violated Melissa's constitutional right to get advice from the parents on issues relating to the minor's religious freedom, upbringing, and medical care. The parents indicated that the crisis contraception wants to keep them from knowing about the potential pregnancy, violating the parents' freedom to decide on health matters concerning their child.
The court rejected their claim stating that while parents' liberty interests are recognized where the state mandates or prohibits anything that interferes with those liberties, in this case, Melissa's parents did not demonstrate that the State interfered with their parental rights. The court did not find evidence that the clinic prevented or discouraged Melissa from engaging the parents regarding the emergency contraceptives. The court established that the clinic did not coerce Melissa to take the contraception pills. The court further indicated that the right of parents to care must be balanced against minors' constitutional rights to privacy. Hence, the court held that any legal right under state regulation to parental notice is dependent upon protected limits, including the minor's freedoms to security (United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2007).
The court discusses the case of Doe v. Irwin because it is similar to Anspach v. City of Philadelphia. In Doe, parents of minors sued a publicly funded planning center. They alleged that distributing contraceptives to minors without notifying them violated their constitutional rights as parents. Although the Center served adults and minors, it did not advertise any of its services to minors or encourage them to attend. The Center allowed minors to participate in sessions with or without their parents' approval. It also included prescriptions of contraceptives that were given to the minors with or without their parent's knowledge or consent. Although the district court held that the distribution of contraceptives without parents' consent violated their constitutional rights, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision. The district court relied on Supreme Court cases regarding the right to privacy and held that minors' right to privacy included the right to get contraceptives. Hence Doe v. Irwin provided a basis for the court to demonstrate that the Appellees upheld the minor's right to privacy, which meant that the clinic did not need to notify the parents.
TQ 4.2: Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer: What is the basis of the plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge? Why does the New Jersey Supreme Court hold that the statute violates plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the laws?
Under Equal Protection under the New Jersey State constitution, pregnant minors seeking to exercise their constitutional right to abortion, surgical and medical care have the same rights as adult women. However, the plaintiffs, Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey, held that the Parental Notification for Abortion Act interfered with the constitutional right to privacy. While a minor is entitled to constitutional protection for her privacy, the Legislature established compelling and critical State interests in protecting minors against their immaturity exist. Here, it is essential to protect the rights of the parents to rear their children while simultaneously enhancing the family structure and enabling it to remain a viable social unit. The Legislature was clear that minors cannot make fully informed choices and that abortion could have adverse medical, emotional, and psychological implications. At the same time, parents’ knowledge that their daughter has had an abortion can ensure that the minor receives the required medical attention after the procedure. However, the Plaintiffs maintained that parental notification could hinder minors from exercising their constitutional right to procure an abortion, since it could subject them to physical and emotional abuse or even prevent abortion. Hence, it was necessary that the plaintiffs ensure the application of Under Equal Protection under the New Jersey State constitution and hence preclude the enforcement of the Parental Notification for Abortion Act.
The New Jersey Supreme Court holds that the statute violates plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the laws because it treats minors seeking to exercise their constitutional right to abortion differently from those seeking medical and surgical care related to pregnancy. At the same time, the statute views pregnant minors differently from pregnant adult women seeking an abortion. Here, the statute pained pregnant minors as unable to make informed decisions regarding pregnancy, abortion, and childbirth. The court noted that the State recognizes minor’s maturity in other circumstances like child adoption. By treating minors differently, the court found that this violates their constitutional right to abortion. The court recognized the cases perceiving guardians’ established privileges to raise their kids without state impedance, yet found that those cases don’t concede guardians a right to be informed when a minor youngster tries to practice her own established privileges without parental association.
TQ 4.3: In re E.G.: What is the mature minor doctrine? What are the dissent’s objections to the majority opinion?
The mature minor doctrine refers to the common law rule that permits an mature adolescent to give consent for medical treatment. In this case, an unemancipated minor patient may have the maturity to choose or reject a given healthcare treatment, even without the knowledge or consent of parents. Initially, the mature minor rule was viewed as a way of protecting providers from criminal and civil suits by patients of 15 and below years. However, today it is considered a form of patient rights. Each State may indicate the age of medical consent, allow judgment of licensed medical providers or allow a formal court decision following an application for the patient to be designated a mature minor. The mature mino...