Texas has a new web of rules to implement in 2016 regarding minors who need an abortion without any parental consent. In late December, The Texas Supreme Court issued the newly passed judicial law which is also known as HB 3994 to take effect. Many of its detractors said that HB 3994 law includes restrictions that are considered to be unconstitutional.
HB 3994 governs the process for abused and neglected minors to obtain court approval to consent an abortion. The new law took effect on January 1 which imposes extensive restrictions for those minors seeking a judicial bypass for an abortion.
Tina Hester, an executive director of Jane's Due Process said that the judicial bypass protects vulnerable pregnant teens who cannot find or safely turn to a parent. The nonprofit advocacy organization serving minors in need of reproductive health care also said in a statement added, "The legislature and Governor Abbott decided to go after abused and neglected pregnant teens by amending this law."
House Bill 3994 requires minors who are considering the bypass to submit to the judge their home address, phone number, and name. Thus, this law removes the patient's confidentiality and anonymity. The new law also requires minors to file their request for a bypass in their home county if its population is greater than 10,000, including cases of rape. HB 3994 also removes the enforcement deadlines for the judge to rule on a minor's request for an abortion. Critics said that this provision effectively gives power to the judge to stall out a minor until they can no longer obtain legal abortion.
Founding mother of Jane's Due Process and a legal counsel herself, Susan Hays, said that "When a minor cannot even get a hearing or a court ruling in time, the state is then making her decision for her." She then emphasized that HB 3994 is an example of abuse of state power that amounts to 'absolute veto' on an individual's decision. She also agree that such abuse is utterly unconstitutional.
Hays also added that the rules advisory committee offered suggestions to make the new law, HB 3994, more useful for both the courts and the clients, and less unconstitutional.
However, the Texas Supreme Court rejected such suggestion of the advisory committee and went on issuing final rules governing judicial bypass process that advocates claim are even more restrictive than those considered by legislators when they passed House Bill 3994.
In late 1970, the US Supreme court ruled that to be constitutional, a judicial bypass process must be expeditious, anonymous, and provide effective opportunity for a minor to obtain an abortion. Detractors claim that the new Texas requirements violate these requirements in number of ways.
Meanwhile, advocates have not yet challenged the requirements in court. The moment they submit such challenge, it would serve again as another mark for court battle over abortion rights in Texas.
