Jewish groups are angrily charging that a woman’s right to an abortion has been further eroded by two Supreme Court decisions upholding laws requiring either parental or judicial approval for a teenager to end a pregnancy.
“I am outraged; it is much worse than we imagined,” said Joan Bronk, president of the National Council of Jewish Women.
The decisions Monday on laws in Ohio and Minnesota “show that the Supreme Court is not tuned in with the reality of family life in America today,” Bronk said.
The Ohio law, which requires a minor to notify at least one parent or guardian 24 hours before an abortion, was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 vote.
The law allows a teenager who does not want to notify her parents to get approval from a judge by proving she is mature enough to make her own decisions or that seeking parental approval would not be in her best interests.
In the Minnesota case, the court struck down a section of the law that required that both biological parents be notified 48 hours in advance of an abortion.
But by a 5-4 vote, it upheld another provision that allows a court to make the decision as an alternative to both parents.
“Strengthening the family is a matter of highest priority in Jewish life,” said Ann Lewis, chairwoman of the American Jewish Congress Commission for Women’s Equality.
“But parental consent and notification laws, even with judicial bypass procedures, do nothing to help families,” she said.
Richard Fulton, associate legal director of the American Jewish Committee, also expressed “dismay” at the decisions, arguing that the requirement on parental notification will not help strengthen family life.
As a practical matter, those teen-agers who seek abortions without letting their parents know “may have valid reasons,” including fear of child abuse or other types of violence, Fulton said. A judicial bypass may be beyond the capabilities of these minors in a crisis-laden atmosphere, he said.
‘YOUNG WOMEN ARE GOING TO DIE’
Bronk of NCJW agreed it will be very difficult for these young women to face court procedures. “It is an extreme course of action to ask a young woman to take,” she said. “I think young women are going to die because of these decisions.”
Lewis of AJCongress agreed that the law could have dangerous consequences. “Desperate teen-agers may resort to life-threatening measures, such as seeking an abortion from an unlicensed or unqualified practitioner, or even attempting to self-abort,” she warned.
But even if this does not occur, the decisions will cause teen-agers “to delay their efforts to obtain abortions with consequent risks to their health,” Lewis said.
“Most minors will carry to term and begin a destructive cycle of poverty, both for the teenage parent and her child,” she added.
The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith expressed “disappointment” with the court’s decisions.
Thomas Homburger, chairman of ADL’s Civil Rights Committee, said the Ohio and Minnesota laws “impermissibly interfere with a minor’s personal and religious freedom.”
These laws “reflect the view that abortion is morally wrong and that life begins at conception,” Homburger said. “When the state imposes that view on women, it violates the First Amendment by interfering with an individual’s religious belief.”
AJCommittee, AJCongress and ADL all filed briefs against the two laws. The ADL brief was joined by B’nai B’rith Women, Catholics for a Free America and Women’s American ORT.
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
