Mark Joseph Stern
@mjs_DC

A Florida appeals court held that when a judge denies a pregnant minor's request for judicial bypass to get an abortion without her parents' consent, she cannot appeal unless her parents intervene as the adverse party. Which defeats the point of bypass. https://1dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/1458589/opinion/Opinion_2023-3326.

This decision means that a child in Florida who is raped and impregnated by her father or step-father, and denied an abortion by a judge, has no ability to appeal unless she notifies her rapist and allows him to intervene to oppose her abortion. https://1dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/1458589/opinion/Opinion_2023-3326.pdf

Concurring, Judge B.L. Thomas writes that ALL judicial bypass procedures violate the 14th Amendment by denying parents the "fundamental right" to oppose their daughter's abortion in court.

If SCOTUS adopted this logic, it would imperil minors' abortion rights in all 50 states.

TALLAHASSEE — For the second time in less than three weeks, an appeals court Wednesday rejected a minor’s attempt to have an abortion without notifying and getting consent from a parent or guardian.

But the ruling by a three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal could have broader implications for future requests by minors to receive waivers from a parental notification and consent requirement in state law.

The minor, identified by the pseudonym Jane Doe, went to the appeals court after Leon County Circuit Judge Lance Neff turned down her request for such a waiver. In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind ruling in Florida, the appeals court Wednesday said it did not have legal jurisdiction to decide the case and dismissed it.

The appeals court said the case lacked a necessary “justiciable controversy” because it did not have an “adverse party.” Such an adverse party could have been a parent or guardian of the minor.

“This appeal comes to us with only the minor’s interests presented to the court,” said the ruling, written by Judge Lori Rowe and joined by Judges Thomas Winokur and Brad Thomas. “And without representation of the interests of the parents — the parties whose rights are directly implicated under the parental notification and consent law. Indeed, the appeal comes to us with no appellee (a respondent in an appellate case) at all. Under these circumstances, there is no justiciable controversy for us to adjudicate.”

While he agreed with the ruling, Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that indicated he thinks parents’ rights are being violated.