March 10, 1999
Court upholds parental notification
___By Ashlee Ross
___Baptist Joint Committee
___WASHINGTON (ABP)--The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear two abortion-related cases Feb. 22, leaving intact a ruling against a police officer who asked to be exempted from guarding an abortion clinic based on his religious beliefs and a decision upholding a parental-notification law.
___The high court refused to hear an appeal from Chicago police officer Angelo Rodriguez. He alleged the city discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by refusing to exempt him from an assignment to stand guard outside an abortion clinic.
___The city often posts guards at the abortion clinics on Saturdays during demonstrations and following clinic violence in other areas.
___Rodriguez, a Roman Catholic, asked two of his superiors to exempt him from guarding abortion clinics in Chicago's 14th district because he opposes abortion.
___The police department offered Rodriguez a transfer with equal pay and benefits to a district with no abortion clinic. Rodriguez refused, saying he was entitled to stay in the 14th district and avoid clinic duty.
___In 1995, Rodriguez filed a suit charging discrimination in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He also claimed the city violated his religious liberty under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and asked for an injunction prohibiting the police department from assigning him to clinic duty.
___In 1998, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Rodriguez's claims under RFRA, since the 1993 religious liberty law was partially invalidated by the Supreme Court in 1997.
___The 7th Circuit ruled that the city made reasonable accommodation in offering Rodriguez a transfer, holding that the Civil Rights Act "requires only 'reasonable accommodation,' not satisfaction of an employee's every desire."
___In the Virginia case, the Supreme Court let stand the 1997 Virginia Parental Notice Act, which requires minors to notify their parents at least 24 hours before having an abortion.
___The law, which is similar to one currently proposed in the Texas Legislature, exempts girls who can show abuse by a parent or guardian.
___The Supreme Court has upheld parental-notification statutes in the past. But the high court has invalidated laws that require parental consent, because they allow a third party absolute veto of the abortion.
___"Although we have held that a state may not constitutionally legislate a blanket, unreviewable power of parents to veto their daughter's abortion, a statute setting out a 'mere requirement of parental notice' does not violate the constitutional rights of an immature, dependent minor," the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said.Frontpage / Contents/ Masthead / Why We're Here / Links / Archive / E-mail us/ SUBSCRIBE!