2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-21-2007 

# Ans p a ch v . P hi l a D ept Pub P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3632

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" An sp a ch v . P hi l a D ept P ub " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 327. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/327P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________________ N o: 05- 3632

_____________________ MEL I SSA L . ANSPACH, A MI NOR, BYAND TH ROUGH HER PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, KURT A. ANSPACH AND K AREN E. ANSPACH; KURT A. ANSPACH; KAREN E. ANSPACH, I N THEIR OWN RI GHT, Appe lla nts
v. C IT YO F P H ILAD E LP H IA , D E P A RT M EN TO F P U B LIC HEALTH ; JOHNF . D OM Z ALI SKI , H EAL THCO MMI SSI ON ER; L OUI SE L I SI ; MARIAFE DOROVA; MARY GILMORE, R.N.; J IT EN D RAN
. S H A H , M
. D
. ; C IT YO F P H ILAD E LP H IA

____________________ A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r T h e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 05- cv- 00810 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J
. C ur t i s J oyner

__________________ A r gued J anuary16, 20072 B efor e: M cK E E , A M B R O , and ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udges

_____________________ ( Fi l ed: Sept ember21, 2007)

_____________________ J O SE PH P. ST A N T O N , E SQ
. ( A r gued) L aw O ffi ces of J os eph P. St ant on J enki nt ow n, PA 19046 A t t orneyfor A pp el l ants J A N E L O V I T C H I ST V A N , E SQ
. ( A r gued) S e n io r A tto rn e y , A p p e a ls C i t yof Phi l adel phi a Law D epart m ent R om ul o L
. D i az, J r . , C i t ySol i ci t or 1515 A r ch St r eet , 17t h Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102- 1595 AR T HUR B. KE P P E L , E S Q. CH AR L E S A. F I T Z P AT RI CK , E S Q. R aw l e & H ender s on T he W i dnerB ui l di ng 1339 C hes t nutSt r eet O ne Sout h Penn Squar e, 16 Fl oor th Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 A t t orneyfor A pp el l ees T err yL
. Fr om s on D avi d S. C ohen W om en’ s L aw Pr oj ect 125 S. N i nt h St r eet , Sui t e 300 Phi l adel phi a, PA 191073 Susa n Fr i et s che W om en’ s L aw Pr oj ect 425 Si xt h A ve. , Sui t e 1860 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 Paul M es s i ng K ai r y s , R udovs ky , E ps t ei n & M es s i ng 924 C herr ySt r eet , Sui t e 500 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 A t t or ney s forA m i ci C ur i ae

OP I NI ON

M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge. M el i s s a A ns pach a nd herpar ent s br ought this act i on
a g a in st th e c ityo f

P h ilad e lp h ia ( th e “ C ity ” ) a n d c e rta in o f its emp loy ees a nd agent s , i ncl udi ng t he C i t y ’ s H eal t h D epart m ent
a n d th e C o m m iss io n e r o f P u b lic H e a lth . M e lissa is a 1 6 -y e a r-o ld
u n e m a n c ip a ted m in o r. T h e ya lleg e th a t ag e n ts o f th e C ity
v io la ted M e lissa ’s c o n stitu tio n a llyp ro tec ted rig h t to b o d ily i ntegr ityand parent al gu i dan ce, as w el l as her parent s’
c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h tt o f

a m i l i a l p r i v a c y a n d t h e i rp a r e n t a l l i b e r t y,Pl ai nt i ffs ’ C om pl ai nt m en ti o n s t hei rr i ghtt o fami l i al 1 p riv a c yin th e c o n te x t o f C o u n t I, an a lleg e d v io latio n o f th e ir f u n d a m e n tal p a re n tal lib e r ty in ter e st u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m endment
. E v en if w e i nt erpr ett hi s as a s epar at e al l egat i on f ro m th e ir rig h t to p a re n tal lib e rty , P lain tiff s f a il t o a d d re ss th is al l eg at i on as a s epar at e vi ol at i on i n t hei rB r i ef. A bs ent compel l i ng ci r cumst ance s n o t pr es enther e, fai l ur e t o r ai s e an a rg u m e n t in o n e ’s o p e n in g b ri e f w a iv e s i t. L a b o rers ’ Int’l U ni on of N
. A m . v. Fos t erW

heel erC or

p. , 26 F. 3d 375, 398 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). Th i s a c t i o n was i n i t i a l l y b r o u g h t i n s t a t e c o u r t , but 2 D efe ndant s r emoved t he s ui tto f eder al cour tbas ed upon P l ai nti ffs’ federal con st i tuti on al cl ai m s. 4 bypr ovi di ng M el i s s a w i t h emer gencycontr ace pt i on w it hout
n o t i f y i n g h e rp a r e n t s , o re n c o u r a g i n g h e r t o c o n s u l twi t h t h e m. 1 B oth M el i ssa and her parent s al so al l ege a viol at i on of thei r Fi rs t A m endmentr i ghtof r el i gi o u s freedom, and s ever al caus es of
a c tio n u n d e r s ta te la w . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the fe der al const i tut i onal cl ai m s pur s uan tt o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) , and r emanded t he
re m a in in g s ta te c la im s to s ta te c o u rt . T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d
. 2 Fort he r eas ons that fol l ow , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt ’s d is m is s a l. I . F ACT UAL AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY5 A. O n Ja n u a ry2 6 , 2 0 0 4 , M e lissa A n sp a c h v isited a h e a lth cent eroper at ed byt he C i t y ’ s D epart m entof Publ i c H eal t h ( t he “C enter ”). M el i ssa had recent l yeng aged i n s e x u a l i nter cou rs e and fe ar ed s he maybe pr egnant . U pon arr i vi ng at t he C ent er , s he
r equested a pr egnanc yt es t , buta r ece pt i oni s ti nfor m ed hert hat pregna n c y test s w ere not being ad m i nis t ered t hat day
. M el i ssa t hen l eftt he C ent erbutr etur ned a s hor t t i m e l at eraft era fr i end pr om pted h er t o “as k fort he morni ng aft erpi l l
. ” U pon her
r eturn, M el i s s a w as di r ect ed t o t he pedi atr i c w ar d w her e s he pr ovi ded hername and dat e of bi r t h, t her ebydi s cl os i ng t hats he
w a s s ix te e n y e a rs o f

a g e . Pl ai nt i ffs al l ege thatM el i s sa t hen s poke w i t h defe ndant M ari a F edo rova, a soci al w orker, for app roxi m at el yt en m i nu t es. T heydi s cus s ed s exual l yt r ans m i t t ed di s eas es , bi r t h contr ol , and
emer gencycontr ace pt i on. D u ri n g t he conve r s at i on, Fedor ova confi r m ed that t he C ent er coul d pr ovi de pi l l s “that w oul d pr event [M el i ss a ] f

ro m g e tti n g p re g n a n t,” a n d M e lissa re q u e ste d the pi l l s.N or det t e i s par t of a gr oup of drugs t hatar e r egul ar l yus ed 3 as or al contr ace pt i ves . T he Food a nd D rug A dm i ni s t r at i on has al s o appr oved thes e drugs forus e as emer gencyorcontr ace pt i on f o llo w in g s e x u a l in te rc o u rs e . Se e g e n e ra lly D ept . of H eal t h and H u m a n S e rv ic e s , F o o d a n d D r u g A d m in ., P r es cr i pt i on D r ug P r oduct s ; C er t ai n C om bi ned O r alC ontr acept i ves f orU s e as P os t coi t alE m er

gency C ontr acept i on , Par t V , 62 Fed. R eg. 8610 (F e b ru a ry 2 5 , 1 9 9 7 ). T he r egi m en forus i ng N orde tt e as emer gency contr ace pti o n consi s t s of t aki ng t w o t abl et s ( 0. 75 m g i n eac h pi l l ) w i t hi n s eventy - t w o hour s of unp rotec t ed i nt er cour s e, fo ll o w ed b ya se co n d iden ti ca l do se tw elve h o u rs la te r. Id
. E m er gencycontr ace pt i on pr ovi des a s hor t , s t r ong, bur s tof hor m one expos ur e. D epend ing on w her e a w om an i s i n her m ens t rual cy cl e and w hen s he had unpr ot ect ed i nt er cour s e, us i ng emer gencycontr ace pt i on m aypr eventovul at i on, di s rupt f e r t i l i z a t i o n , o r i n h i b i t i mpl a n t a t i o n o f a f e r t i l i z e d e g g i n t he u te ru s . Id
. I f a f

er t i l i zed eg g is impl ant ed pr i ort o t aki ng t he re g i m e n , th e e m e rg e n c yc o n tr a c e p tio n w ill n o t w o rk
. See F D A ’s D ecisi on R ega rdi ngP l a n B : Q uest i on s andA nsw ers ( M a y 2 , 2 0 0 4 ), a v a i l abl e at ht tp: // w w w . fda. gov/ cder/ drug/ i nfopage /pl anB /pl anB Q andA
. ht m. T he numberof pil ls p er dosa ge appe ar s t o depend on the 4 amount of hor m ones cont ai ned i n eac h pi l l
. Pl ai nt i ffs do not 6 D efe n d antM aryG i l m or e, a r egi s t er ed nur s e, nextt ook M el i s sa’s t emper atur e and bl ood pr es s ur e, and gave herfour tab lets o f “ N o rd e tte.” G ilm o re to ld M e lissa to tak e f o u r p ill s 3 ri gh taw ayand t hen fou r m ore i n tw el ve hou rs . B efore M el i ssa 4in d ic a te th e a m o u n t th a t e a c h p ill c o n ta in e d h e re . 7 t o o k t he pi l l s , G i l m or e cons ul t ed w i t h Fedor ova’ “t o fi nd out h o w M eli ssa s h o u ld tak e the p il ls. ” S h e also ask ed D r. Jit en d ra Shah i f s he w ant ed t o exami ne M el i s s a. A ft erdet erm i ni ng t hat th e d o c to r did n o t w a n t to e x a m in e M e lissa , G ilm o re re tu rn e d to M eli ssa, w h o ask ed if t h e p il ls w o u ld m ak e h er sic k
. G il m o re
consu lt ed w i t h t he doct oronce a gai n, and the doct oradvi s ed G i l m or e t o t el l M el i s s a t o dr i nk gi ngeral e. M el i s s a then t ook t he f o u r N o rd e tte p ills in th e n u rs e ’s p re s e n c e , a n d w e n t h o m e . M el i s s a t ook t he s econd dos e of pi l l s at h om e at
a p p r o x i ma t e l y 4 : 0 0 A. M
. a s s h e h a d b e e n i n s t ru c t e d
. A ft er t aki ng t he s econd dos e, s he expe r i ence d s ever e s t om ach pa i ns and bega n vom i t i ng. M el i s s a’ s fathercam e to h er r oom and found herl y i ng on t he floo r. U pon l earni ng t hatM el i s s a had tak e n e m e rg e n c y c o n tra c e p tio n , M r. A n sp a c h c a lled th e ir f a m ily p h y sic ian a n d th e p o iso n c o n tro l ce n ter , an d th e n to o k M e lissa to t h e e me r g e n c yr o o m of a n e a rb yh o s p i t a l
. M e l i s s a was t r e a t ed t her e and r el eas ed the s ame day , buts ubs equen tl yr etur nedM el i s s a cl ai m s s he w as t ol d t hatemer gencycontr ace pt i on 5 w oul d pr eventherfr om becomi ng pr egnant , butcl ai m s s he w as neveri nfor m ed thatt he pi l l s coul d pr eventt he i m pl ant at i on of a f e rt iliz e d e g g , s o m e th in g th a t s h e e q u a te s w ith a b o rt io n . 8 beca us e of s ub-co n

junct i ve hemor r hagi ng i n herey e thatw as
a p p a re n tly c a u s e d b ye x c e s s iv e v o m itin g . B. Pl ai nt i ffs t her eaf

t erfi l ed a com pl ai nti n t he C our tof Co mmo n P l e a s i n P h i l a d e l ph i a Cou n t y . Th e ya s s e r t e d c l a i ms under42 U
. S. C
. § 1983, as w el l as var i ous cl ai m s ar i s i ng under stat e law
. T h e su itw as su b s e q u e n tlyrem o v ed to f ed era l cou rt
w h e re th e D e f

e n d a n ts file d a m o tio n to d ism iss p u rsu a n t to R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ). T h e p a re n ts’ § 1 9 8 3 c laim s a r e p re m ise d o n th e ir cont ent i on t hatD efe ndant s vi ol at ed thei rcons t i tut i onal r i ght s of par ent al gui dance by pr ovi di ng M el i s s a w i t h m edi cat i on w i t hout par ent al cons ent . M el i s s a al l eges t hatt he s ame conductvi ol at ed hercons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o bodi l yi nt egr i t yand par ent al gui dance
u n d e rt h e F o u r t e e n t h Ame n d me n t . Ea c h o f t h e P l a i n t i f

f s c l a i ms vi ol at i ons of hi s orher r i ght t o the fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on under th e F irst A m e n d m e n t. 5 T he D i s t r i ctCou rtd i s mi s s e d al l of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s under9 § 1 9 8 3 a n d re m a n d e d th e re m a in in g sta te la w c laim s to sta te
cour t . T hi s appea l of the di s m i s s al of t he fe der al cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s fol l ow ed.

I I . S TANDA RD O F REVI EW W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. O ur
r e v i e w o f

t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s i s p l e n a r y. Mo rs e v . L o w e r Me r io n S c h . D ist. , 1 3 2 F
. 3 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 6 (3d C ir
. 1997)
. W hen r evi ew i ng a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) di s m i s s al , w e ac ceptas tru e a ll w e ll- p le d f

a c tu a l a lle g a tio n s in th e c o m p l a i n t , id ., and
v iew th e a lleg a tio n s o f th e c o m p lain t in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e p la in tif

f
. P i nker v. R oche H

oldi ngs , L td. , 292 F. 3d 361, 3 7 4 n . 7 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ). In a § 1 9 8 3 ac ti o n , “the p lai n ti ff s are ent i t l e dt o r el i ef i f thei rcompl ai nts uffi ci ent l yal l eges depr i vat i on
o f an y ri ghts ecur ed byt he C ons t i tut i on. ” Langf or d v. C i t

y of A tla n tic C ity , 2 3 5 F .3 d 8 4 5 , 8 4 7 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). A l t hough w e vi ew t he al l egat i ons i n t he com pl ai nti n t he lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to th e p lain tiff , w e n e e d n o t cr e d it “b a ld
as s er t i ons ” or“l egal concl us i ons . ” I n r e Burl i ngt on C oat Fact or y Sec
. Li t ig. , 1 1 4 F
. 3 d 1 4 1 0 , 1 4 2 9 -30 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ).

“ [ L ]e g a l co n c lu sio n s m a sq u e ra d in g a s f a c tu a l co n c lu sio n s w ill not s uffi ce t o pr eventa mot i on t o di s m i s s . ” Morse , 132 F. 3d at10 906 n. 8 ( quot i ng Fernan dez-M on t es v. A l l i ed P i l ots A ssocs. , 987 F
. 2 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 4 (5th C ir
. 1 9 9 3 )).

I I I . DI S CU S S I ON T o st at e a cau se of acti on un der § 19 8 3 , P l ai nti ffs m ust
a lleg e th e d e p riv a tio n o f a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t u n d e r c o lo r o f sta te l aw . 42 U
. S. C
. § 1983; G om ezv. Tol edo , 446 U
. S. 6 3 5, 640 (1 9 8 0 ); see al

so M ark v. B orou gh of H

atboro , 51 F. 3d 1137, 1 1 4 1 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 5 ), cer t . deni ed , 5 1 6 U
. S. 858 ( 1995)
. T he A nspach s contend in C ou nt I o f t heirC om plai nt that D efen dan t s’ conductdepr i ved them of t hei r f u n d ament al r i ghtt o di r ect M el i s s a’ s r ear i ng and educa t i on. I n C ount I I , M el i s s a al l eges t hat D efe ndant s depr i ved h erof herr i ghtt o par ent al gui dance and advi ce i n m at t er s r el at i ng t o m edi cal car e. B ot h count s ar i s e out of the l i ber t yi nt er es t s guar ant eed byt he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of t he Four t eenth A m endment
. Pl ai n ti ffs a l s o al l ege that D efen dan t s vi olat ed thei r Fi rs tA m end m ent ri gh t t o fr ee exe rci se
o f re li g ion b yp rov iding M eli ssa w ith m ed icati o n that co u ld ab o rt a pr egnanc yi n vi ol at i on of t hei r r el i gi ous obj ect i ons t o abor t i on. A . S u b st an ti ve D u e P rocess T he Supr eme C our thas l ong r ecogni zed thatt he r i ghtof par e n t s t o c a r e f

o ra n d g u i d e t h e i rc h i l d r e n i s a p r o t e c t ed11 f u n d a m e n tal lib e rtyin ter e st. See, e. g. , Meye r v. N ebras ka , 262 U .S . 3 9 0 (1 9 2 3 ); P i erce v. So ci et y of Sist ers , 268 U
. S. 510 (1 9 2 5 ); P rin c e v . M

a ssachus e tts , 3 2 1 U .S . 1 5 8 (1 9 4 4 ); W isc o n sin
v. Y oder , 4 0 6 U .S . 2 0 5 (1 9 7 2 ); Pa r h a m v. J
. R. , 442 U
. S. 584 (1 9 7 9 ); T

ro x e l v . G ra n v ill e , 530 U
. S. 57 ( 2000)
. T hat
co n sti tuti o n al pro tecti o n is “d ee p lyroo ted in this N at i on’ s hist o ry and tr adi t i on. ” Mo o re v . C ity o f E a st C lev e la n d

, O h io , 43 1 U. S. 494, 503 ( 1977) ( ci t i ng Y oder , 4 0 5 U .S . a t 5 0 3 ). N evert hel es s , t he par ent al l i ber t y i nt er es t i s notabs ol ut e. Itis w ell -estab li sh ed that “[ m ]i n o rs, as w ell as a d u lt s, a re p ro te c te d b yth e C o n s titu tio n a n d p o s s e s s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts .” P la n n e d P a re n th o o d

o f C e n tra l Miss o u ri v . D a n fo rth , 42 8 U. S. 5 2 , 7 4 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ( o v e r ru l e d i n p a r tb y P l anned Parenthood of Southeas t er n P a. v. C as ey , 5 0 5 U
. S
. 8 3 3 ( 1 9 9 2 ) )
. A c c o r d i n g l y, p a rent al i nter est s m ust be bal anced w i t h the chi l d’s ri gh t to pr i vacy , w hi ch i s al s o pr ot ect ed undert he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. T hi s del i cat e b alan ce i s onl yi m pl i cat ed, how ever , i f the
cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of both t he par entand chil d ar e i nvol ved. “I n a typi cal § 1983 act i on, a courtm us ti nit ial lydet erm i ne
w hethert he pl ai nt i ff ha s even a l l eged the depr i vat i on of a r i ght t hat ei t her fede r al l aw ort he C ons t i tut i on pr ot ect s . ” G r uenke v.12 S e ip , 225 F. 3d 290, 298 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( ci t i ng B akerv. McC ol l an , 4 4 3 U
. S
. 1 3 7 , 1 4 0 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ( “ T h e f i r s t i n q u i r y i n a n y § 1983 s ui t . . . i s w hethert he pl ai nt i ff ha s been de pr i ved of a r i ght
s e c u r e d b yt h e Co n s t i tu t i o n a n d l a ws . ” ) ( q u o t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) )
. As
w e s hal l expl ai n, t he al l egat i ons here d o notes t abl i s h t he
co n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion req u ir ed to m aintain a n ac ti o n u n d er § 1 9 8 3 . T h u s, w e n e e d n o t d e c id e w h ich w a yth a t b a lan c e w o u ld
o th e rw is e tip
.

1 . In ter fer en ce w it h P a re n tal R igh ts M el i ssa’s parent s al l ege a su bst anti ve d ue p rocess vi ol at i on bas ed on s t at e i nt er fer ence w i t h fami l y r el at i ons . T hey
a rg u e th a t th e C e n ter ’s p o licie s w e re a im e d a t p re v e n tin g p a re n ts fro m learn ing o f their m ino r da u g h ter’s po ssible p reg n an cies. In
s uppor tof thei rcont ent i on, t he A ns pachs point to t he fa ctt hat personn el at t he C enter kn ew M el i ssa’ s age, fai l ed to ask M el i ssa i f her par ent s knew of herpr edi cament , and fa i l ed t o encour age M e lissa to c o n su lt w ith h e r p a re n ts b e f o re d e c id in g w h e th e r to t ake em ergencycon t racept i on . T he C om plai nt al l eges that these fac t s demon str at e thatD efe ndant s “enga ged i n a cour s e of conduct that w as i nt ended t o i nfl uence M el i s s a t o r efr ai n fr om d isc us s i ng w i t h herpar ent s herpos s i bl e pr egnanc yand w hat13 c o u rs e o f a c tio n w a s a p p ro p ri a te .” A p p . a t 2 3 a . T he D ue P roc es s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment pr ovi des tha t“[n] o St at e s hal l
. . . depr i ve anyper s on of l i fe, lib e rty , o r p ro p e rty , w ith o u t d u e p ro c e ss o f law .” U .S . C o n st. A m end. X I V
. T o s t at e a due pr oces s claim under§ 1983, t he A n s p a c h s m u s ti d e n t i f y a “ r e c o g n i z e d ‘ l i b e r t y o rp r o p e r t y’ i nt er es tw i t hi n t he p ur vi ew of the Four t eenth A m endment , and [s how ] t hat[theyw er e] i nt ent i onal l yor rec k l es s l ydepr i ved of t hat i nt er es t , even t empora r i l y , undercol orof s t at e l aw . ” G riffith
v. Johns t on , 899 F
. 2 d 1427, 1435 ( 5t h C i r . 1990) ( ci t at i ons
o m itte d ), cer t . deni ed , 4 9 8 U
. S
. 1 0 4 0 (19 9 1 ). H ow ever, w e m ust
r emai n m i ndful t hat “se ct i on 1983 i m pos es l i abi l i t yfor vi ol at i ons of r i ght s protec t ed byt he C ons t i tut i on, notfor
v i o l a t i o n s o f d u t i e s o f c a r e a r i s i n g o u t o f t o r t l aw . ” B a ke rv. McC ol l an , 4 4 3 U .S . 1 3 7 , 1 4 6 (1 9 7 9 ); see al so D eShaney v. W i nn e ba go Count

y D e pt . of So c . Se r vs. , 489 U
. S. 189, 202 (1 9 8 9 ) (“[ T ]h e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se o f th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t. . . d o e s n o tt r a n s f o r m e v e r y t o r tc o m m i t t e d b y a
s ta te a c to r i n to a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n .” ). A s w e not ed ea r l i er , the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment“pr ot ect s t he funda m en t al r i ghtof14 par ent s t o m ake d eci s i ons conce r ni ng t he ca r e, cus t ody , and contr ol of thei rchi l dr en. ” Trox el , 530 U
. S. at 66. H ow ever , “the
r i ghti s nei t her abs ol ut e nor unqua l i fi ed. ” C
. N
. v. R i dgew ood B d. of E duc. , 430 F. 3d 159, 182 ( 3d C i r . 20 0 5 )
. T he type of “i nt er fer enc e” t hatt he A ns pachs as s er tw oul d i m pos e a
co n st i t ut i onal o b l i g a t i o n o n s t a t e a c t o r s t o c o n t a c t p a r e n t s o f a
m i norort o encour age mi nor s to co nt actt hei rpar ent s . E i t her
r equi r ementw oul d underm i ne the mi n o r’s r i ghtt o pr i vacyand
exce ed the s cope of

t he fa m i l i al l i ber t yi nt er es tp rot ect ed under th e C o n s titu tio n . C o u rts h a v e re c o g n ize d th e p a re n tal lib e rtyin ter e st o n ly
w here t he behav i or of the st at e act or com pell ed i nter feren c e in t he par ent - chi l d r el at i ons hi p. T hes e cas es i nvol ve coe r ci on t hat i s abs ent fr om t he al l egat i ons i n Pl ai nt i ffs ’ C om pl ai nt . T hi s poi nt i s p e r h a p s b e s ti l l u s t r a t e d b y D o e v . Irw in , 6 1 5 F .2 d 1 1 6 2 (6 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ), a c a s e v e ry si m ila r t o th e o n e b e f o re u s h e re . I n D oe , a cl as s of par ent s of m inorchi l dr en s ued a publ i cl yfunded f

ami l ypl anni ng cent er . T heycl ai m ed t h at t he d istr i but i on of contr ace pt i ves t o m i nor s w i t houtnot i ce t o t he p a re n ts v io late d th e p a re n ts’ c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts. T h e F a m ily Pl anni ng C ent eri n D oe s erved bot h adul t s and mi nor s . “N ei t her15 t he C ent ernor an y o f it s s ervi ces r el at ed t o m i nor s [w er e]
a d v e rtise d , an d m in o rs [ w e r e ] n o t so u g h t o u t o r e n c o u ra g e d to
a t t e n d t h e Ce n t e r . . . . ” Id
. at 11 6 3
. M ino rs w ere , h o w ev er, “perm i t t ed t o come t o t he C ent erei t herw i t h orw i t houtpar ent al
cons ent . ” Id
. T he Fami l yPl anni ng C ent er ’ s s ervi ces i ncl uded p resc ri p ti o n o f c o n tra ce p ti v es th at w ere d istri b u ted to m ino rs “both w i t h and w i t houtpar ent al know l edge orcons ent . ” Id
. T h e F a m ilyP lan n in g C e n ter ’s p ro g ra m s f e a tu re d w e e k ly

“ ra p se ss io n s” f

o r m in o rs. T h e y w e re e d u c a tio n a l a n d d e a lt w ith
m ethods of bi r t h contr ol , as w el l as t he r es pons i bi l it ies t hat
acc om panybei ng s exual l yact i ve and the “des i r abi l i t yof
comm uni cat i ng w i t h par ent s and ot her s i nvol ved w i t h a dec i s i on t o engage i n s exual act i vi t i es . ” Id
. M i nor s w ere n o t ser ved by t he Fam i l y P l ann i ng C enter un l ess t heyhad fi rs tat t end ed at l east
one w eekl yr ap s es s i on. T hes e s es s i ons w er e i nt ended t o g i ve “fa ct ual i nfor m at i on about bi r t h c o n t r o l a nd hum an
r e p r o d u c t i o n . ” Id
. at164. M i nor s w ho at t ended a r ap s es s i on had t o r egi s t erand make an appoi nt m ent att he Fami l yPl anni ng C ent er . T he fi r s t vi s i t t o t he F ami l y Pl anni ng C ent eri ncl uded a phy s i cal exami nat i on. I f no m edi cal pr obl ems w ere det ect ed, f e m a le m in o rs w e re u su a lly g iv e n a th re e -m o n th su p p lyo f b irth16 c o n tr o l p ills
. Id
. A ccor di ng t o t he t es t i m onyof the admi ni s t r at or of the Fami l yPl anni ng C en te r , t he C ent er ’ s per s onnel di d not advoca t e thatunm arr i ed t eena ger s becom e s exual l yact i ve, but t he per s onnel t r i ed “t o d ea l w i th i ndi vi dual s . . . ” i n a “nonju d g m e n ta l” w a y . Id
. at 11 6 4 (qu o tat ion o m itted). T he di s t r i ctcour ti n D oe found thatt he di s t r ibu ti on of contr ace pt i ves t o m i nor s w i t houtnot ice t o par ent s vi ol at ed the par ent s ’ cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . T he c o u rtent er ed a pe r m anent i nj unct i on and or der ed the F ami l y Pl anni ng C ent er t o “ce as e and des i s t fr om di s t r i but i ng contr ace pt i ves and contr ace pt i ve devi ces t o m i nor , unemanci pat ed chi l dr en i n t he abs ence of not i ce t o t he par ent s . . . and a r eas onabl e oppor tuni t y for t he par ent s of s uch chi l dr en t o cons ul tw i t h t hei rchi ldr en as t o t he dec i s i on of the chi l d w hetherornott o o b tai n contr ace pt i ves orcontr ace pt i ve devi ces . ” Id . a t 1 1 6 5 (q u o ta tio n o m itte d ). T h e C o u rto f A p p ea ls fo r th e S ix th C ir cu itrev erse d
. It
r el i ed on a l i ne of Supr eme C our tcas es i nvol ving the ri ghtof pr i vacy , t he author i t yof the s t at e t o r egul at e the cond uctof chi l dr en, and the s cope of a mi nor ’ s r i ghtof pr i vacyand concl uded that“[a ] s w i t h adul t s , the mi nor ’ s r i ghtof pr i vacy i ncl udes t he r i ghtt o obt ai n co nt r ace pt i ves . ” Id
. at1166 ( ci t i ng17 C a rey v. P o

p u lati o n S erv ices In t’ l , 4 2 1 U
. S
. 6 7 8 , 6 9 2 -93 (19 7 7 )). C i t i ng B el l ott i v. B air d , 4 4 3 U
. S
. 6 2 2 (19 7 9 ) (B ell o tt i I I ) , t he
c o u rt e x p lain e d th a t “[ t]h e S u p re m e C o u r t h a s n o t sq u a re ly deci ded w hethera s t at e mayi m pos e a r equi r ementof par ent al not i ce, as oppos ed t o par ent al cons en t , as a condi t i on of a
m i n o r’ s r ece i vi ng an abort i on. ” D oe , 615 F. 2d at1167. T he
cour tobs erved that t he “one fundament al di ffe r ence ” betw een th e c a se b e f

o re it an d c a se s w h e re th e sta te h a d in ter f e re d w ith t he r i ght s of par ent s ort he r i ght s of chi l dr en w as t hat“[i ] n eac h of the S u p rem e C our tcas es t he s t at e w as ei t herr equi r i ng or pr ohi bi t i ng s om e ac t i vi t y . ” Id
. at 1168. T he courtt hen expl ai ned i t s observat i on as fol l ow s: I n Meye rv. N

ebr as ka , [262 U
. S. 390 ( 192 3 )] t he sta te f o rb a d e th e tea c h in g o f

f o re ig n lan g u a g e s to pupi l s w ho had notpas s ed the ei g h th gr ade. T he C our thel d t he s t atut e not r eas onabl yr el at ed t o any end w i t hi n t he compet encyof the st at e and vi ol at i ve of pa r ent s ’ Four t eenth A m endmentr i ght t o l i ber t y . I n P i erce v. So ci et y of Sist ers , [2 68 U
. S. 510 ( 1 925) ] t he s t atut e r equi r ed al l chi l dr en b e t w een the ages of

8 an d 1 6 to at t end pu bli c s chool s . T h e Cou r t f o u n d t hat t he l aw unr eas onabl yi nt er fer ed w i t h t he l i ber t yi nt er es tof par ent s t o di r ectthe u pbr i ngi ng and educ at i on of th e ir c h ild re n , inc lu d in g th e rig h t to se n d th e m to acc r edi t ed pr i vat e s chool s . A g ai n i n W is cons i n v. Y oder , [406 U
. S. 205 ( 1972) ] t he l aw i n ques t i on m ad e sc h o o l at tend an ce c o m p u lsory
. T h e C o u rt h e ld th a t A m ish p a re n ts’ F irst A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts18 t o t he fr ee exer ci s e of thei rr el i gi on w er e i nfr i nged byt he at tend ance r equi r ement . I n P r i nce v . Ma ss a c h u se tts , [321 U
. S. 158 ( 1944) ] chi l d l abor l aw s w er e cons t rued t o pr ohi bi ts t r eets al es of reli g iou s tr ac ts b ych il d ren . In th at ca se th e C o u rt uphel d t he convi ct i on o f a p ar entw ho cont ended t hat t hes e l aw s unr eas onabl y i nt er fer ed w i th her r i ghtof fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on and h erpar ent al rig h ts. In so h o ld in g , the C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t a s t at e’ s author i t yi s notnul l i fi ed mer el ybeca us e the p are n t g rou n d s h is cl aim to co n tr o l th e c h il d ’s cour s e of c onducton r el i gi on orcons ci ence . I d. at 1 1 6 8
. V i ew ed aga i ns tt hi s l egal backdr op, i ti s cl eart hat Pl ai nt i ffs cannotm ai nt ai n a due pr oces s vi ol at ion w hen the conductcompl ai ned of w as devoi d of any for m of cons t r ai ntor
c o m p u ls io n . Pl ai nt i ffs compar e the abs ence of pr ot ocol s i n pl ace att he C en ter h er e w i t h t he r ap s es s i ons i n D oe in a n a ttem p t to
m i ni m i ze D o e’s re le v a n c e t o o u r a n a lysis o f th e irc la im s . See A p p e llan ts’ B r. at 2 4 -2 5
. T h e y e m p h a siz e th e f o llo w in g a sp e c ts of the Fami l yPl anni ng C ent er ’ s pr o toc ol i n D oe : i nt r a- ut er i ne d e v ice s w e re n o t d isp e n se d to m in o rs w ith o u t p a re n tal c o n se n t, th e p ro g ra m e n c o u ra g e d m in o rs to d isc u ss “ th e ir se x u a l in ter e sts
w i t h t hei rpar ent s , ” and “ [t ] he dec i s i on on w hether a part i cul ar i n d i v i d u a l w i l l r e c e i v e c o n t r a c e p t i v e s i s m a d e i n e v e r y c a s e b y a phy s i ci an. ” Id
. at25. A l though i ti s cl eart hatt he s ervi ces19 provided b yt he C enterhere are notal l eged t o incl ud e t ho se
cons i der at i ons , w e do nott hi nk t he di ffe r ence s uffi ci entt o al t er
ouranal y s i s ort he r el evanc e of D oe . Si gni fi cant l y , no one pr event ed M el i s s a fr om cal l i ng her par ent s befor e s he t ook t he pi l l s s he had r equested
. Pl ai nt i ffs att em p t t o a rg u e tha t th e c ir cu m stan ce s su rrou n d ing M eli ssa’s vi s i tw er e t ant amount t o s t at e co erc i on and thats uch coe r ci on
w a s su f f icie n t to e sta b lish a d u e p ro c e ss v io latio n . P lain tiff s c ite Lee v. W eis m an , 505 U
. S. 577 ( 1992) , t o s uppor tt hei rar gum ent th a t “t h e s e w e re a d u lt em p lo y e e s o f th e C ityo f

P h ilad e lp h ia tel l i ng a 16 -y ear- [old] m i no r how and w hat t o d o. C oerci on is p l a i n l yi n h e r e n ti n t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . ” A p p e l l a n t s ’ B r . a t 2 0
. We di s agr ee. I n Lee , t he Supr eme C our thel d t h at reci t i ng a nonde n o mi n a t i o n a l p r a y e rd u r i n g a h i g h s c h o o l g r a d u a t i on vi ol at ed the Fi r s t A m endm ent . T he C our tr eas oned that ci rcum st ances en dem i c t o a h i gh schoo l gradua t i on coerced those at t endi ng t o j oi n i n t he pr ay erw hetherornot d o ing so vi ol at ed th e ir p e rso n a l re lig io u s b e lief s. T h e C o u rt e x p lain e d : W h at t o m o st be li ev ers m aysee m n o th ing m o re t han a r eas onabl e re ques tt hatt he nonbel i ever r es pectt hei rr el i gi ous pr act i ces , i n a s chool cont ext20 m ayappea rt o t he nonbel i everordi s s ent er t o be an a ttem p t to e m p lo yth e m a c h in e r y o f th e S tate to e n f o rc e a re lig io u s o rt h o d o x y. . . . T h e u n d en iable f

a c t i s tha t th e sc h o o l distri ct’s s upervi s i on and contr ol of a hi gh s chool gr aduat i on cer emonypl ace s publ i c pr es s ur e, as w el l as peer press ure, on at t end i ng stud ents to s t and as a gr oup or , atl east, m ai nt ai n r es pect ful s i l ence dur i ng t he I nvocat i on and B enedi ct ion. T hi s pr es s ur e, t hough s ubt l e and i ndi r ect , can be as r eal as any o v er tcompul s i on. . . . [F] ort he d iss e n ter o f

h ig h sc h o o l a g e , w h o h a s a r e a so n a b le p e rc e p tio n th a t sh e is be in g f o rc e d b yth e S tate to pr ayi n a m anner her cons ci ence w i l l notal l ow , t he in ju ry is . . . re a l. 505 U
. S. at592- 93. T he C our tal s o s t r es s ed th at a tt en d ance at t he ce r emonyw as nott rul yvol unt ary . “[T]o say a t eena ge
s tudenthas a r eal choi ce nott o at t end herhi gh s chool gr aduat i on i s for m al i s t i c i n t he extr eme. ” Id . a t 5 9 5
. T he cir cum st ances h ere ar e verydiffer ent. T he A nspach s’ al l egati on of co erci on i s m erel y t hat N urse G i l m ore “t old M el i ssa to sw all o w the p il ls be fo re leav ing the c en ter. ” A p p ell an ts’ B r. at19. H ow ever , M el i s s a w as onl ygi ven the pi l l s beca us e s he
as ked fort hem. A rgu i ng t hatcoer ci on i s es t abl i s hed bec aus e a
nur s e s ai d “t ake these , ” w hi l e handi ng M el i s s a a gl as s of w at er and t h e pi l l s s he had r eques t ed, i gnor es w hatr eal l yhappene d. M or eover , Pl ai nt i ffs ’ i ns i s t ence t hatt he atm os pher e at t he C ent erA rn o ld w a s o v e r ru l e d o n o t h e rg r o u n d s b y Leather m a n v. 6 T a rr a n t C o u n ty N

a rc o tics In tellig e n c e a n d C o o rd in a tio n U

n it , 5 0 7 U
. S
. 1 6 3 (19 9 3 ). 21 w a s su f f icie n tly c o e rc iv e to im p lica te th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se is bel i e d b yt h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e i rComp l a i n t . Th e Comp l a i nt
s t at es t hat , w hen s he ent er ed the C en ter fort he s econd t i m e, M el i s s a r eques t ed the morni ng aft erpi l l and w as t her eaf t er advi s ed byFedor ova thatt he C ent ercoul d pr ovide p il l s t hat
w oul d pr event M el i s s a fr om becomi ng pr egnant . A pp. at16- 17a. M e lis s a re s p o n d e d th a t s h e w o u ld ta k e th e p ills
. Id
. “N urse G i l m or e then gave fourof the pi l l s to M el i s s a and i ns t ruct ed M el i ssa t o t ake these pi l l s w i t h w at er, w hich M el i ssa did i n N urse G i l m or e’ s pr es ence . ” A pp. at18a. Si m pl ybei ng t ol d w hen and how t o t ake a pi l l t hat M el i s s a her s el f r eques t ed i s nott ant amount to c o e rc io n . I n A r nold v. B d. of

E duc. of Es cam bi a, C ount

y, A l a. , 880 F. 2d 305, 308- 09 ( 11t h C i r . 1989) , t he C our t of A ppeal s fort he E l eventh C i r cui t found a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on w her e pl ai nt i ffs all eg ed that sch o o l of

ficials ha d en g ag ed in o v ert acts to p roc u re an abort i on fora s tudentw i t houtcont act i ng herpar ent s . T he 6
s chool gui dance couns el orhad di s cover ed that “J ane D oe” w as22 pr egnant . She t hen s um m oned J ane t o heroffi ce f orcouns el i ng, and, att he expens e of the s chool , pr ocur ed a pr egnanc yt es tt hat
w as pos i t i ve. T he counse l or and the vi ce pr i nci pal of the s chool t hen per s uaded J ane D oe an d John D oe ( w ho had admi t t ed p a te rn ity) to o b ta in a n a b o rt io n . I d. at 309. B eca us e the y ou ng st ers cou l d n ot a f f o rd t o p ayfor an ab ort i on t hem sel ves,
sc h o o l o f f icia ls p a id th e m to p e rf

o rm m e n ial tas k s so th e yc o u ld
r ai s e the moneyfort he pr ocedur e. School offi ci al s even pa i d an i ndi vi dual t o dr i ve the mi nor s t o a medi cal fa cil it y w her e the
a b o rt io n w a s p e rf

o rm e d
. I d. at 30 8-09. Th e cou rtheld that these act i ons amount ed t o coer ci on of a m i nor t o obt ai n an abort i on or t o r efr ai n fr om di s cus s i ng t he m at t er w i t h her par ent s i n vi ol at i on
o f th e la tte r’ s p a re n ta l r ig h ts . I d. a t 3 1 3
. T he def endant s i n A rn o ld w e re p u b lic sc h o o l o f f icia ls in a p o sit ion o f a u tho ri tyo v er the D o e p lai n ti ff s an d the m ino rs there w ere req u ir ed b y law to attend sch o o l w h ere theyw ere
su b jec t to th e a u th o r it y o f th e d e f e n d a n ts. T h e c o m p lain t in A rn o ld al l eged that th e s chool offi ci al s notonl ypr es s ur ed the ch il d ren t o r efr ai n fr om di s cus s i ng t he pr egnanc yand abort i on
w i t h t hei rpar ent s , butal s o i m pos ed th eir o w n w i l l on t he deci s i on of the chi l dr en r egar di ng w hethert o abor tt he pr egnanc y23 i n var i ous w ay s , i ncl udi ng bypr ovi di ng t hem w i t h t he moneyfor th e p ro c e d u re a n d h irin g a d riv e r t o tak e th e m to th e a p p o in tm e n t. Id
. at309. T her e ar e no s i m i l aract s t hat coul d ar guabl ybe s een
as coer ci on al l eged he r e. N o r c a n th e A n sp a c h s f in d su p p o rt in o u r d e c isio n in G ruenke v. S e ip , 225 F. 3d 290, 309 ( 3d C i r . 2000)
. T h e r e , we recogn i zed the pa rental l i bertyi nter estof a m otherw ho se daught erw as for ced by her hi gh s chool s w i m t eam coac h t o t ake a pr egnanc yt es taft erhe bec am e su sp i ci ous t hats he w as p re g n a n t. Id
. at296- 97. A ct i ng on a hunch, t he coa ch di s cus s ed hi s s us pi ci ons w i t h ot her s chool per s onnel , i ncl udi ng a gui dance
cou nsel or, and asked other t eam m em bers ab ou tt heirsuspi ci on s. A l t h o u g h s p r e a d i n g t h i s ru mor wi d e l y , h e d i d n o t c o n t a ct t he
m i nor ’ s par ent s . H e fi nal l y i ns i s t ed t hat t he s w i m m eri n ques t i on ta k e a p re g n a n c yte s t. I d. at 295- 96. T her eaf

t er , t he s tudentand h e r m o th e r s u e d th e c o a c h u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 a lle g in g , in tera lia , vi ol at i o n o f

t h e moth e r ’ s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h tt o ma n a g e h er d a u g h t e r ’ s u p b r i n g i n g a s w e l l a s t h e d a u g h t e r ’ s r i g h t t o p r i v a c y. I d. a t 2 9 7
. I n det erm i ni ng w hethert he pl ai nt i ffs had al l eged a const i tut i onal vi ol at i on i n G r uenke , w e r ecogni zed both t he24 par ent al i nt er es t i n di r ect i ng t he car e of t hei r chi l dr en and t he fa ct t hat , “fors om e por t i ons of the d ay , chi l dr en ar e i n t he compul s or ycus t odyof s t at e- oper at ed sch o ol s y s t ems. I n t hat
s et t i n g the s t at e’ s pow eri s cus t odi al and tut el ary , perm i t t i ng a degr ee o f

s u p e r v i s i o n a n d c o n t r o l t h a tc o u l d n o tb e e x e r c i s ed
o v er fre e adul t s . ” I

d. at304 ( ci t at i on and quot at i ons om i t t ed). D ur i ng t hi s cus t odi al t i m e, in o rde r t o m ai nt ai n or derand the pr opereduca t i onal atm os pher e, att i m es , t hos e author i t i es “may i m pos e s t andar ds of conduc tt hatdi ffe rfr om t hos e appr oved of bys om e par ent s . ” I

d. W h e re th e se sta n d a rd s co lli d e , a c o u rt w ill
r equi r e the St at e t o demonst r at e a c om p el l i ng i nt er es tt hat out w ei ghs t he par ent al l i ber t yi nt er es ti n r ai s i ng and nur tur i ng th e irc h ild
. Id
. a t 3 0 5
. W e r ecogni zed i n G r uenke t hat“[s ] choo l- s pons or ed
c o u n se lin g a n d p sy c h o lo g ica l tes tin g th a t p ry in to p riv a te f a m ily act i vi t i es can ove r s t ep the boundar i es o f school author i t yand i m perm i s s i bl yus urp t he funda m ent al r i ght s of par ent s t o br i ng up t hei r chi l dr en . . . . ” Id
. at 307. H ow ever , t hatr ecogni t i on does notext end t o ci r cums tanc es w her e ther e i s no m ani pul at i ve,
c o e rc iv e , o r r e s tr a in in g c o n d u c t b yth e S ta te . T he coa ch’ s conductat issue i n G r uenke is q u a lit a tiv e ly25 di ffe r entfr om D efe ndant s ’ conducther e. Si gni fi cant l y , he t ook act i on i n t andem w i t h hi s author i t y as t he m i nor ’ s sw im co ach. W i t ho ut the m i no r’ s i nv i t at i on , i nd eed, agai nsther exp res s
w i s hes , t he coac h had very per s onal conver s at i ons w i t h her i n an at t empt t o have her admi t t o bei ng pr egnant , and he as ked other
c o a c h e s to d o th e s a m e . Id
. a t 2 9 6 . W h e n sh e w o u ld n ’t a d m it t o bei ng pr egnant , he pai d fora pr egnanc y t es t and t ol d her , t hr ough ot herm ember s on t he t eam, t hatunless sh e t ook t he pr egnanc y te s t, h e w o u ld ta k e h e r o f f th e re la yte a m . Id
. I n addi t i on, know i ng t hatt he mi nor ’ s pos s i b l e pr egnanc yw as a t opi c of gos s i p among ot hert eam m em b ers a s w el l as t hei rpar ent s , he
w oul d occa s i onal l yt el l ot her s t hati tw as pos s i bl e thats he w as pr egnant , w hi l e att empt i ng t o expl ai n t he i ncr eas e i n hert i m es at
s w im m e e ts . Id . a t 3 0 7
. H e re , the C e n ter , a p u b lic h e a lth c lin ic, h a d n o a u th o rity
o v er M eli ssa, no r did C en ter st af f b ec o m e inv o lved in M eli ssa’s
re p ro d u c tiv e h e a lth d e c isio n s w ith o u t in v it a tio n . T h e o n ly fa ctua l bas is fo r P lai n ti ff s’ claim is th a t N u rs e G il m o re

“ in stru c ted ” M e lissa to tak e th e e m e rg e n c yc o n tra c e p tio n p ill s
w ith w a ter a n d th a t D e f

e n d a n ts n e ith e r a d v ise d M e lissa to talk to herpar ent s befor e t aki ng t he pi l l s norfi r s to ff ere d t o l ether26 p h o n e th e m . See A p p el l ant s ’ B r . at18- 19. U nl i ke the d ef en dant ’ s conducti n G r uenke , t he C enter ’s act i on s fai l to
s ugges tt hatM el i s s a w as i n anyw ay co m p ell ed, cons t r ai ned or
coer ced i nt o a cour s e of a ct i on s he obj ect ed t o. T h e re a l p ro b lem a lleg e d b yP lain tiff s is n o t th a t th e sta te act ors i n t e r

f e r ed w i t h t he A ns pachs as par ent s ; r ather , i ti s t hat t he st at e act ors did n o t assist t he A ns pachs as par ent s or
a f f i r m a t i v e l y f

os t ert he par ent/ chi l d r el at i ons hi p. H ow ever , t he A ns pachs a r e notent i t l ed t o t hatas s i s t ance undert he D ue P ro c e s s C l a u s e . See D eShaney , 48 9 U
. S
. at19 6. P l ai nti ffs’
ar gum ent s t o t he contr aryi gnor e that t he C ons t i tut i on “does not
r equi r e the G overnm entt o as s i s tt he hol derof a c ons t i tu t i onal
r i ght i n t he exe r ci s e of thatr i ght
. ” H ai t i an R ef

ugee C ent er, I

nc.
v. B aker , 9 5 3 F .2 d 1 4 9 8 , 1 5 1 3 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ); s ee al s o Y e v. U ni t ed Stat es , 484 F. 3d 634, 636 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( no aff i r m at i ve actcons t itu ti n g depr i vat i on of l i ber t yw her e publ i cl yempl oy ed d o ctor w ron g lyassu red p ati en t th at th ere w as n o thing to w o rry
a b o u t an d th a t h e w a s f

in e ); Y oungber g v. R om eo , 457 U
. S. 307, 317 ( 1982) ( “A s a gene r al m at t er , a St at e i s u n d er no
con st i tuti on al du t yt o p rovi de sub st anti ve servi ces for tho se
w i t hi n i t s bor der ”) ; H

ar r is v. McRae , 448 U
. S. 297, 317- 318, 10027 ( 1980) ( no con s t i tut i onal obl i gat i on t o fund abort i ons orother
m edi cal s ervi ces )
. A s t he S upr eme C our t r ecogni zed i n H a rr is : “A l t ho ug h the l i bert y p rot ect ed b yt he D ue P rocess C l ause aff or ds pr ot ect i on agai ns tunw arr ant ed governm enti nt er fer ence

. . . , i t does not confe r an ent i t l ement t o s uch [gove r nm ent al ai d]
as m aybe nec es s aryt o r eal i ze a l l t he adva nt ages of t hat f re e d o m .” 4 4 8 U .S . a t 3 1 7 -3 1 8
. T h e A n sp a c h s a ttem p t to m a rsh a l f a c ts to su p p o rt th e ir
a rg u m e n t th a t th e C e n ter “ p e rm its n o p a re n tal in v o lv e m e n t a t all,
a n d p u r p o s e f

u llyse e k s to se p a ra te th e ir c h ild re n f ro m th e ir par ent s i n t he di s t r i but i on of thes e pi l l s . ” A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at21. H o w e v e r, as w e h a v e re p e a ted lystre ss e d , the C o m p lain t is
c o m p lete lyd e v o id o f

a n ya lleg a tio n s th a t C e n ter p e rso n n e l to ld M el i s s a not t o cons ul therpar ent s befor e t aki ng t he medi cat i on,
o r th a t M e li ss a to ld C e n ter p e rso n n e l th a t sh e w a s re lu c tan t to t ake the medi cat i on befor e s peaki ng w i t h her p ar ent s and w as pr event ed fr om doi ng s o, oreven thatanym ent i on w as m ade of herpar ent s atal l
. Pl ai nt i ffs admi t t hat M el i s s a ent er ed the C ent er vol unt ar i l yand r eques t ed t he m or ni ng aft er pi l l
. M el i s s a di d not avai l her s el f of the oppor tuni t yt h at she ha d, pr i ort o t aki ng t he
m edi ci ne orr eques t i ng i t , t o cal l her par ent s or t o t el l t he C ent er28 s t aff t hats he w ant ed t o del ay t aki ng t he m edi cat i on t o cont acther par ent s . T hes e fact s i n no w ays ugges tt hatt he s t at e i nj ect ed i t s el f i nto the A ns pachs ’ pr i vat e fa m i l i al s pher e as r equi r ed for
a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . Pl ai nt i ffs fai l t o pl ead suf fi ci ent i nt er fer ence byt he s t at e. H er e, as i n D oe , t her e i s no
r equi r eme n t [ byt he St at e] t hatt he [c hi l dr en] of pl ai nt i ffs avai l [themsel ves ] of the s ervi ces offe r ed

. . . and n o p ro hibi t i on againstt he p l ai nti ffs’ par t i ci pat i ng i n deci s i ons of thei rm i nor[chi l dr en] on i s s ues of s exual act i vi t y and bi r t h contr ol
. T he pl ai nt i ffs rem ai n fr ee t o exer ci s e thei rt r adi t i onal car e, c u s t odyand contr ol overt hei runemanci pat ed chi l dr en. D oe , 6 1 5 F .2 d a t 1 1 6 8
. O u r a n a ly sis in P ar ent

s U ni t ed f or B et t erSch. I

nc. v. Sch. D is t . of P a. B d. of

E duc
. , 14 8 F
. 3 d 260, 276 ( 3d C i r . 1998) (“ PUBS ”) , i s nott o t he contr ary . T her e, w e hel d t hata condom dis t ri bu t i on program did not vi olat e p arent al ri gh t s becau se par t i ci pat i on i n t he progr am w as vol unt aryforbot h par ent s and
s tudent s and the progr am s peci fi cal l y al l ow ed par ent s t he opt i on
o f re f u s in g th e irc h ild ’s p a rt ic ip a tio n . Id
. at275- 76. Pl ai nt i ffs rel y o n thatop t -outprovis i on i n thei r att em pt t o d i st i ng uis h P U B S. Howev e r , a c l o s e rl o o k a tt h a td e c i s i o n u n d e r mi nes29 P la in tif f s ’ e f f o rt s to d is tin g u is h it. A s j us tnot ed, ourconcl us i on that t her e w as no coer ci on i n PUBSw a s b a s e d o n tw o c h a ra c ter istics o f th e p ro g ra m : it s
v o lu n ta ry n a tu re , a n d th e o p t- o u t p ro v is io n . H o w e v e r, PUBS d o e s n o t h o ld th a t an o p t-o u t p ro v is io n is c o n stitu tio n a lly
re q u ire d w h e n e v e r re p r o d u c tiv e h e a lth se rv ice s a re p ro v id e d to
m i nor s . W e s i m pl yr ecogni zed thatt he opt
- outpr ovi s i on fur t her underm i ned the appe l l ant s ’ cl ai m t hatt he condom di s t r i but i on p ro g ra m w a s c o e rc iv e o r c o m p u ls o ry. I d. a t 2 7 7
. W e di d not deci de w h etherpar ent al r i ght s w oul d be vi ol at ed i f a s t at es pons or ed condom di s t r i but i on pr ogr am di d notr equi r e par ent al
no t i fi cat i on or consen tbecau se the is sue w as not before us. I n PUBS , w e ci t ed favor abl yto D oe, w hi ch found “ no depr i vat i on of the l i ber t yi nt er es tof par ent s i n t he pr act i ce of not
n o t i f y i n gth e m o f

th e ir c h ild re n ’s v o lu n tar yd e c isio n s to par t i ci pat e i n t he ac t i vi t i es of the C ent er . ” PUBS , 148 F. 3d at 276 ( ci t i ng D oe , 615 F. 2d at1168) ( emphasi s added)
. I n quot i ng t hi s l anguage , w e di d notl i m i tt he r el evanc e of D oe ; w e n o t ed onl yt hatt he pr ogr am at i s s ue i n PUBSw as vol unt ary , j us tl i ke t he pr ogr am i n D oe , and thati tal s o prov ided forpar ent al
n o tif ic a tio n . Id
.30 T h a t PUBSdoes not s t and for t he pr opos i t i on t hatt he l ack of an opt
- outpr ovi s i on i s fat al t o t he cons t i tut i o n ali t yof a contr ace pt i ve di s t r i but i on pr ogr am i s al s o evi dence d by our
r el i ance on C u rtis v . Sc h . C o m m . o f Fa lm o u th , 420 M as s . 749, 7 5 9 (1 9 9 5 ), cer t . deni ed , 516 U
. S. 1 0 6 7 ( 1996)
. T her e, t he M as s achus et t s Supr eme Court hel d t hat beca us e t he pr ogr am at i s s ue l acke d “any degr ee of coer ci on or compul s i on i n vi ol at i on
o f th e p la in tif

f s ’ p a re n ta l lib e rt ie s , o r t h e irf a m ilia l p r i v a c y. . . nei theran optoutpr ovis i on norpar entalnot i f i cat i on is r equi r ed by the Feder alC ons t i t ut i on .” I d. at759- 60 ( emphasi s added)
. T he pr ogr am i n C u rtis w as
vo l un t ary , and t he co u rt thus rej ect ed the pl ai nti ff p arent s’
r eques tfora pr ogr amm at i c cha nge thatw oul d have a ffor ded them n o ti ce an d the a b il ity to op t o u t o f th e pro g ram . T h e c o u rt
e x p lain e d : W e dis cern no coerci ve b urden o n t he p l ai nti ffs’ p are n tal li b erti es in this case
. . . . C o n d o m s are avai l abl e t o s tudent s w ho r eques tt hem and, i n hi gh schoo l , m aybe o btai ned from ven ding m achines. T he s tudent s ar e notr equi r ed to see k outand ac cept t he cond o m s, rea d the lit era ture acc om pany i ng t hem, orpar t i ci pat e i n couns el i ng re g a rd in g th e ir u se . In o th e r w o rd s, th e stu d e n ts a re f re e to d e c lin e to p a rt ic ip a te in th e p ro g ra m . .

. . A l t hough expos ur e t o condom ve n di ng m achi nes and t o t he pr ogr am i t s el f m ayoffe nd t he31 m o ral an d reli g iou s sen sibil it ies o f p lai n ti ff s, m ere expos ur e t o pr ogr ams offe r ed ats chool does not a m o u n t to u n c o n stitu tio n a l in ter f e re n c e w ith p a r e n t a l l i b e r t i e s wi t h o u tt h e e x i s t e n c e o f s o me c o mp u l s o r ya s p e c to f

t h e p r o g r a m. I d. a t 7 5 7 -5 8 . T he sam e i s true here. A l t ho ug h the A nspach s’
m o ra l a n d re lig io u s s e n sib ili ties m a yh a v e b e e n o f f e n d e d b yth e ir dau g h t e r s e e k i n g o u t a n d u s i n g e me r g e n c y c o n t r a c e p t i o n , her deci s i on w as vol u nt ary . T he C ons t i tut i on does notpr ot ect p a re n tal s e n sib ili ties , n o r g u a ra n tee th a t a c h ild w ill f o llo w th e ir par ent s ’ m or al di r ect i ves . D efe ndant s ’ act i ons t her efor e do not “amountt o uncons t i tut i onal i nt er fer ence w i t h p ar ent al l i ber t i es

. . . . ” Id
. at758. W e r eal i ze, how ever , t hatone ca s e thati s ci t ed i n PUBS , b u t n o t co n tro lli n g h e re , arg u a b lylen d s s o m e su p p o rt to P lain tiff s’ c laim th a t an o p t-o u t f e a tu re m a yb e c o n stitu tio n a lly
r equi r ed t o pr ot ectt he par en ta l l i ber t yi nt er es t . I n A l f ons o v. Fer nandez , 6 0 6 N
. Y
. S
. 2 d 2 5 9 (N
. Y
. A p p . D iv. 19 9 3 ), the c o u rt fo u n d a p a re n tal li b ertyv iolati o n w h ere co n d o m s w ere d is tr ib u ted to stu d e n ts u p o n re q u e st in th e sc h o o l’s h e a lth
r es our ce r oom w i t houtan opt - outpr ovi s i on or par ent al not i ce req u ir em e n t. Id
. at261. T he hol di ng i n A l f on so , h o w ev er, is l i m i t ed t o t he di s t r i but i on of contr ace pt i ves t o m i nor s i n a s chool32 s et t i ng. T he cour t vi ew ed thatas coer ci ve bec aus e publ i c s chool
a tte n d a n c e is m a n d a to ry. S e e id
. a t 2 6 6 . T h is c a se is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f

r o m A l f ons o fort he sa m e re as ons t hatt he A l f on so cour tdi s t i ngui s hed D oe : I n D oe t he pl ai nt i ffs w er e at t empt i ng t o enj oi n t he d istrib u tio n o f

c o n tra c e p tiv e d e v ice s to th e ir ch ild re n at a p u b li c c li n ic. T h e c li n ic, h o w ev er, w as not i ns i de a s chool or ot herbui l di ng w her e the par ent s w er e obl i ged byl aw t o s end thei rchi l dr en. C ons equent l y , i n D oe th e re w a s n o S tate c o m p u lsio n o n p a re n ts to s e n d th e ir c h ild re n in to an envir on m ent w here t heyhad un res t ri ct ed acc ess t o fr ee c ont r ace pt i ves , w hi ch i s pr eci s el yw hatt he pet i t i oner s i n t he i ns t antm at t erm us tdo.
I d. A l t hough t he A ns pachs m ake much of thei ri nab i l i tyt o opt
ou tof the C enter ’s dis t ri bu t i on of N ordet t e, as the fo regoi ng case law m a k e s c lea r, th e y o v e rlo o k th e f a c t th a t se rv ice s o f

f e re d a t a publ i c h ea lt h cl i ni c ar e w hol l yvol unt ary . T he C ent erpr ovi des
re p ro d u c tiv e h e a lth se rv ice s o n lya t th e re q u e st o f in d iv id u a ls
w h o c o m e th e re a n d a s k f o r t h e m . W e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ct C our t t hat “pas s i ve fai l ur e on th e p a rt o f

a sta te a g e n c ya n d its e m p lo y e e s ca n n o t f o rm th e b a sis of a cons t i tut i onal cl ai m . ” A n sp a c h v . C ity o f P h ila d e lp h ia , 2005Al t h o u g h we q u o t e t h i s s t a t e me n to f t h e Di s t r i c tCo u r t , we 7 do noti nt end t o sugges tt hatt he pl eadi ngs her e es t abl i s h any “fa i l ur e” i ns ofaras t hatt erm s ugges t s D efe ndant s w er e under so m e d u tyto in f

o rm M e lissa ’s p a re n ts o r in s tr u c t M e lissa to cont actt hem befor e she coul d r ece i ve emer gencycontr ace pt i on. M e l i s s a i n d e p e n d e n t l y a s s e r t s a r i g h t t o r e c e i v e par ent al 8 gui dance under t he F our t eenth A m endment
. H ow ever , l i ke her p a re n ts, M e lissa h a s f a iled to a lleg e f

a c ts th a t c o n stitu te coer ci on and thus , l i ke herpar ent s , can notsu stai n a c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n u n d e r o u r p re c e d e n t. 33 W L 15 19 01 4 * 3 (E
. D
. P a. 20 05 ). T o h old ot herw i se w ou ld 7 stre tch th e p a re n tal lib e rtyin ter e st w e ll b e y o n d its p re v io u sly defined b orders
. 8 2. P arent al N ot i f i cat i on W e a lso h o ld th a t th e re is n o c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to par ent al not i fi cat i on of a m i norchi l d’ s exer ci s e of r epr oduct i ve pr i vacyr i ght s . Pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m t hat t hei rpos i t i on i s s uppor t ed by par ent al not i fi cat i on r equi r ement s underPenns y l vani a l aw i n t he cont extof m edi cal t r eatm ent , s chool fi el d t r i ps , and blood donat i on. T hey ar gue t hat , j us t as t he st at e can r equi r e par ent al not i fi cat i on i n t he cont ext of a bl ood donat i on, t he C ent erhad an obl i gat i on t o not i fy t hem w hen M el i s s a r eques t ed emer gency
c o n tr a c e p tio n . See, e. g. , 28 Pa. C ode § 30. 30 ( r equi r i ng t hat bl ood donor s betw een the age s of 17 and 18 h av e a w r i t t en34 cons ents i gned bya par entorguar di an)
. I n add it ion , t he A ns pachs ar gue thatt he Penns y l vani a M i nor s ’ C ons ent A ct , 35 P. S. § 10101, w hi ch al l ow s m i nor s t o cons ent t o cert ai n t ypes of
m ed ical trea tm en t, p roh ibit s m ino rs fro m co n sen ti n g to an yfo rm
o f m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t u n s p e c if ie d in th e A c t. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ fi r s tar gum enti gnor es t he w el l
- acc ept ed pr i nci pl e t hat dut i es under s t at e l aw can not cr eat e cons t i tut i onal ri g h ts . Fagan v. C i t

y of V i neland , 2 2 F. 3d 1296, 1309 n. 9 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 4 ) (en b a n c ); se e a lso P a u l v. D a v is , 424 U
. S. 693, 701 ( 1975)
. T he not i fi cat i ons Pl ai nt i ffs r el y upon t o fas hi on a fe der al
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtar e al l r oot ed i n s tat e law obl i gat i ons r ather th a n th e C o n sti tu tio n . T h e se sta tu tes re m a in su b jec t to
cons t i tut i onal l i m i t at i ons , i ncl ud ing t he mi nor ’ s ow n pr i vacy
r i ght s as w el l as t he s t at e’ s l egi t i m at e i nt er es ti n t he r epr oduct i ve heal t h of m i nor s . Second, even i f the A ns pachs coul d gr ound t hei rcons t i tut i onal cl ai m t o not i fi cat i on i n s t at e par ent al cons ent l aw , t heys t i l l coul d notpr evai l
. T he M ino rs’ ConsentA ct
s peci fi cal l yperm i t s m i nor s t o “gi ve ef fec t i ve cons e n tf

orm edi cal and hea l t h s erv ic es t o det erm i ne the pr es ence of ort r eat pr egnanc y. . . and the cons entof no otherper s on s hal l be
nece s s ary . ” See 3 5 P .S . § 1 0 1 0 3
.S e e , e.g ., L am bert v. W i cklund , 520 U
. S. 292 ( 1997) 9 ( fi ndi ng s t atut e’ s j udi ci al bypas s pr ovi s i on, al l ow i ng w ai verof no t i ce requir em ent i f no t i fi cat io n w as not i n m i no r’ s best in ter e st, su f

f icie n t to p ro tec t m in o r’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to ab o rt ion ); C as ey , 505 U
. S. 833 ( uphol di ng s tat u te ’ s par ent al cons entr equi r ementform i nor ’ s abor t i on bas ed on t he exi s t ence o f a jud ici al byp ass m ec h an ism ); H o d gso n v . Min n e so ta , 497 U
. S. 417, 435 ( 1990) ( fi ndi ng a s tat e st atut e’ s t w o- par ent not i fi cat i on r equi r ementform i nor s s eeki n g abor t i ons un co ns t i tut i onal , butperm i t t i ng t he not i fi cat i on w hen coupl ed w ith a jud ici al byp ass p rov isi o n ); O hi o v. A kr on C tr . f orR epr od. He a lth , 497 U
. S. 502 ( 1990) ( uphol di ng a st atut e r equi r i ng a m in o r to n o tify o n e p a re n t b e f o re h a v in g a n a b o rtio n , su b jec t to a j udi ci al bypas s pr ovi s i on) ; s ee al s o H
. L. v. Mathes on , 45 0 U. S. 3 9 8 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t a p a r e n t a l n o t i f i c a t i o n s t a tu t e di d not

(c o n tin u e d ...) 35 W e a re al s o unper s uaded byPl ai nt i ffs ’ r el i ance on Supr eme Cou r tc a s e s t h a tp e r mi tp a r e n t a l n o t i f i c a t i o n i n t he abor t i on cont ext . T hey ar gue thatpar ent al cons enti s r equi r ed for th e d istrib u tio n o f

e m e rg e n c yc o n tra c e p tiv e s in P e n n sy lv a n ia unl es s t he cour t al l ow s t he m i nor t o “bypas s ” the par entw hen the
cour thas det erm i ned that t he m i nor i s m atur e enough t o m ake he r
o w n d e c isio n , o r th a t th e p ro c e d u re is i n th e m in o r’s b e st in ter e st. H ow ever , t he ca s es t hat Pl ai nt i ffs ci t e ar e fundament al l ydi s t i nct fr om t hi s cas e i n bot h or i gi n and appl i cat i on. T heyconce r n t he
co n sti tuti o n al l im it ati o n s o n a state to interf e re w ith a m ino r’s
r i ghtt o abor t i on, r athert han a pa r ent ’ s af firm at i ve r i ghtt o be
a p p r i s e d o f

a m i n o r ’ s r e p r o d u c t i v e d e c i s i o n s g e n e r a l l y. 9(
. . . cont i nued) 9 im p e rm is s ib ly b u rd e n a m in o r’ s ri g h t to o b ta in a n a b o rt io n ). 36 T h e c a se s P lain tiff

s c ite d e v e lo p e d in re sp o n se to
co n sti tuti o n al ch all en g es to stat e law s tha t l im it e d a m ino r’s
r i ght s bycondi t i oni ng t he ava i l abi l i t yof abor ti o ns on par ent al not i fica ti o n and cons ent . C our t s had t o det erm i ne w hethert he g o v ern m en tal interest j u sti fied a stat e’s intru sion into a m ino r’s
r i g htt o an abort i on. T hes e ca s es do not , how ever , cr eat e a
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtof par ent al not i fi cat i on about an abort i on, or anyot herr epr oduct i ve hea l t h deci si on— t heym er el yfi nd s uch
n o t i f i c a t i o n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l l y per m is s i bl e w hen pai red w i t h a j u d i c i a l b yp a s s p r o v i s i o n t o p r o t e c t t h e m i n o r ’ s h e a l t h a n d s a f e t y.

P la i nt i ffs agai n r el yon A r nold and G r uenke f o r th e ir
con t enti on t hat i ti s D efen dan t s, no tt he p arent s, “w ho m ust est abli sh an ab sol ute pr op osi t i on . . . t hat par ents neve rhave a ny
r i ghtt o not i ce, or t o t he basi c medi cal backgr ound exami nat i on of thei ri m m atur e mi nordaught erpr i ort o t he admi ni s t r at i on of
m o ra lly c o n tr o v e rs ia l a n d p o te n tia lly h a rm f u l m e d ic a tio n .” A ppel l ant s ’ B r . at 2 2 (emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. H ow ever , nei t her A rn o ld n o r G r uenke pr ovi de for a const i tut i onal r i ghtt o not i ce.37 P lain tiff s a c k n o w led g e th a t A rn o ld sp e c if ica lly “ d e c lin e d to h o ld t hat[s chool ] couns el or s ar e cons t i tut i onal l ym andat ed t o not i fy par ent s w hen thei rm i norchi l d r ece i ves couns el i ng about pr egnanc y . ” A rn o ld , 880 F. 2d at314. W hi l e the courti n A rn o ld
re c o g n ize d in d icta t hat , i n t he cont extof s chool couns el i ng, s uch
comm uni cat i on s houl d be enc our aged “ as a mat t er o f com m on
s ens e, ” the courtbyn o m eans s ugges t ed thati tw as
cons t i tut i onal l yr equi r ed ort hats uch a r i ghtt o not i ce m ightbe
rec o g n ized u n d er a d iffe ren t set o f circum stan c e s . I d
. I ndeed, t he cour t expr es s l y not ed t hat “[t ] he deci s i on w hether to see k p a re n tal g u id a n c e , ab se n t law to th e c o n tra ry , s h o u ld re st w ith in t he di s cr et i on of the mi nor . ” I d. Si m i l ar l yi n G r uenke , w e re cogni zed t he uni que abi l i t yof
s chool offi cials t o exertcontr ol and author i t yoverm i nor
s tudent s , fi ndi ng a vi ol at i on of the par ent al li b erty r i ghtw hen t hos e off ici al s expl oi tt hei rauthor i t yt o per s uade orcoer ce a
m i no r i nto di scl osure of a repr od ucti ve h eal t h co nd i t i on , or i nsi st
on a cour s e of act i on w i t h r egar d t o cert ai n heal t h deci s i ons . 225 F
. 3 d at 30 7
. W e d id n o t, h o w ev er, r ec o g n ize a p are n t’ s
co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t t o n o ti fica ti o n b ysch o o l of ficials w ith reg ard to a m in o r’s re p r o d u c ti v e h e a lth . R a th e r, w e m e re lyo p in e d in38 d icta t hati ti s doubt ful t hats chool couns el or s have a
cons t i tut i onal r i ght“t o w i t hhol d i nfor m at i on of thi s natur e fr om t he par ent s . ” S e e G r u e n ke , 2 2 5 F
. 3 d 2 9 0 a t3 0 7
. I n d e e d , we di s t i n gui s h t he court ’ s s ugges t i on i n A r nold t hat , “[a ] s a mat t er of comm on s ens e, ” c o u n selo rs sh o u ld en co u rag e com m uni cat i on, 88 0 F
. 2d at31 4, no t i ng t hat the co ach w as not a coun sel or w ho se g u id a n c e w a s so u g h t b y a stu d e n t, b u t in ste a d , a sc h o o l o f f icia l,
a c tin g c o n tra ryto th e stu d e n t’s e x p re ss w ish e s th a t h e m in d h is
o w n b u s in e s s . Id
. a t 3 0 6 -0 7
. H e re , M e lissa , o n h e r o w n in iti a tiv e , v isited a p u b lic heal t h cl i ni c, a fa ci l i t yt hat , unl i ke a publ i c s chool , does not
r equi r e att endanc e orexer ci s e author i t yoverit s vi s i t or s . She th e n m a d e a c h o ice a b o u t w h e th e r sh e sh o u ld c o n tac t h e r p a re n ts b e f o re tak in g th e p ill s s h e h a d re q u e ste d . N o o n e f a m ili a r w ith ad o lesce n ts w il l be s u rprised that sh e ins tead c o n s u lted a p ee r. T hatfr i end advi s ed h ert o r eques temer gencycontr ace pt i on,
w hi ch s he di d. I ti s equal l yuns urpr i s i ng t hats he di d s o w i t hout paus i ng t o cons ul t or advi s e herpar ent s . T he C ons t i tut i on does notr equi r e gover nm ent al i nvol vement i n t hatdeci s i on, and Pl ai nt i ffs have f

ai l ed t o pl ead f

act s t hatw oul d es t abl i s h t hatt he C enteri ns er t ed i t s el f i nt o M el i s s a’ s deci s i on bypr event i ng39 M e lissa f

ro m c o n su lti n g h e r p a re n ts. T h e C o n stitu tio n is des i gned t o pr ot ect i ndi vi dual s fr om unw arr ant ed governm ent al i nt er fer ence , nott o r equi r e i nt ervent i on undert he ci r cumst ance s h e re . S e e A rn o ld , 880 F. 2d at311 ( “I ti s fr eedom in the deci s i o n ma k i n g pr oces s w hi ch r ece i ves cons t i t ut i onal pr o tecti o n . ”) ( ci t i ng R oe v. W ade , 4 1 0 U .S . 1 1 3 ; G r is w old v. C onnect i cut , 381 U
. S. 479; C a rey v. P o p u lati o n S erv s. Int’l , 431 U .S . 6 7 8 , 6 9 4 (1 9 7 7 ); P la n n e d P a re n th o o d

v . D a n fo rth , 42 8 U. S. 5 2 (1 9 7 6 ); Eis e ns t ad tv . Bai rd , 4 0 5 U
. S
. 4 3 8 (19 7 2 )). A ccor di ngl y , Pl ai nt i ffs have f ai l ed t o al l ege a cons ti tut i onal
v io la tio n . Th o u g h t h e yc i t e n o c a s e l a w t o s u p p o r tt h e i rp os i t i on, M el i s s a’ s par ent s ar gue t hat M el i s s a’ s par t i cul ar vul ner abi l i t yas a 16- y ear - ol d m i norr eques t i ng r epr oduct i ve h ea l t h s ervi ces sh o u ld ti p the b alan ce o f li b ertyinterests i n their fa v o r. H o w e v e r, alle g a tio n s th a t m in o rs s e e k in g re p ro d u c ti v e h e a lth
s ervi ces ar e part i cul ar l yvul ner abl e ca n notnegat e the fa ctt hat
m i nor s ar e i ndi vi dual s w ho enj oy cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of pr i vacy
u n d e r s u b s ta n tiv e d u e p ro c e s s . S e e D a n fo rth , 428 U
. S. at74 ( “C ons t i tut i onal r i ght s do notm atur e and c om e int o bei ng
m agi cal l yonl yw hen one a t tai ns t he s t at e- defi ned age ofW e al so no t e, ho w ever, t hat t he st at e’s subst anti al i nter est 10 i n t he r epr oduct i ve hea l t h of m i nor s couns e l s a g a i n s tr e c ogni t i on of a c ons t itut i onal r i ghtt o par ent al not i fi cat i on w hen a mi nor chi l d s eeks confi dent i al heal t h car e servi ces . Feder al l egi s l at i on i n t h i s a r e a , i n p a r t i c u l a r Ti t l e X o f t h e Pu b l i c Hea l t h Ser vi ce A c t, su p p o rts this p re c e p t. 4 2 U .S .C .A
. § § 3 0 0 ; s ee al s o 42 C. F. R. § 5 9
. 5 ( a ) ( 4 ) ( i mpl e me n t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s f o rTi t l e X pr ovi de thatfami l ypl anni ng s ervi ces m us t be provi ded w i t hout re g a rd to a g e ); P l anned Parenthood Fed’ n of A m er i ca, I

nc. v. Hec kler , 712 F. 2d 650 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1983) ( fi ndi ng r egul at i ons i s s ued byt he Secr et aryof H eal t h and H um an S ervi ces r equi r i ng al l pr ovi der s of fa m i l ypl anni ng s ervi ces w hi ch re ce ive funds u n d e r T itl e X o f

th e P u b lic H e a lth S e rv ice A c t to n o tifyp a re n ts orguar di ans w i t hi n t en w or ki ng day s of pr ovi di ng pr es cr i pt i on c o n tra c e p tiv e s to u n e m a n c ip a ted m in o rs in c o n sis ten t w ith Co n g r e s s i o n a l i n t e n ta n d T i t l e X, f o u n d n o s u p p o r ti n T i t l e X, a n d w e re th u s in v a lid ). 40 m a jo rity .”). W h ile p a re n tal n o tific a tio n h a s b e e n p e rm itt e d in lim ite d c ir c u m s ta n c e s in th e c o n te x t o f a b o rt io n , s ee, e. g. , C as ey , 505 U
. S. 833, i t has never been aff i r m at i vel y r equi r ed, n or ext end ed t o i ncl ude otherr epr oduct i ve hea l t h s ervi ces s uch as
a c c e s s to c o n tr a c e p tio n . See Carey , 431 U
. S. at 694 ( hol di ng t hat
a n ya b so lu te p ro h ib iti o n o n th e d istrib u tio n o f c o n tra c e p tiv e s to
m i no rs w i t ho ut par ental con sentw as “ a fort i ori fo rec lose d
. ”). W e ther efor e r ej ectPl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m t o an af fi r m at i ve
cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o not i fi cat i on. 10 B . F ree E x erc i s e of R el i gi on Pl ai nt i ffs ’ fi nal al l egat i on i s t hat D efendant s ’ act i ons41 i nt er fer ed w i t h M el i s s a’ s Fi r s t A m endment r i ght s undert he Fr ee E xerci se C laus e. T h e F ir st A m en d m en t pro h ibit s the governm ent f ro m b u rd e n in g th e f

re e e x e rc is e o f re lig io n . U ni t ed Stat es v. Lee , 45 5 U
. S
. 25 2, 25 6-25 7 (1 9 8 2). H ow ever, t he F i rs t A m endmenti s onl yi m pl i cat ed i f the governm ent al bur den on
r el i gi on i s “s ubs t ant i al
. ” Her n a n d ez v . C. I
. R. , 490 U
. S. 680, 699 (1 9 8 9 ). In order t o est abli sh a subst anti al bu rden, P l ai nti ffs m ust
once a g a i n a l l e g e s t a t e a c t i o n t h a t i s e i t h e r c o mpu l s o r yor
c o e rc iv e in n a tu re . See Lee , 50 5 U
. S
. at 62 1 ( a F ree E x e rc i se C lau se v io la tio n is p re d ica ted o n c o e rc io n ); see al so Lyng v. N o rthw est Ind ian C em etery P ro tecti ve A ss’n , 485 U
. S. 439, 4 4 7 -4 5 1 (1 9 8 8 ); B ow en v. R oy , 4 7 6 U
. S
. 6 9 3 , 7 0 4 -70 5 (19 8 6 ); School D is t . of

A bi ngt on v. Schem

pp , 374 U
. S. 203, 223 ( 1963) (sta tin g th a t “[ th e ] p u rp o se [ o f th e F re e E x e rc is e C lau se ] is to
s ecur e r eli g i ous l i ber t yi n t he i ndi vi dual bypr ohi bi t i ng any i nvas i ons t her eof by ci vi l author i t y . H ence i ti s nece s s aryi n a fr ee e xer ci s e cas e t o s how t he coer ci ve ef fec tof the ena ctm entas it o p e ra tes a g a in st h im in th e p ra c tice o f h is re lig io n .”); see al

so Moz er tv. H

aw ki ns C ount

y Bd. of E duc. , 8 2 7 F. 2d 1058, 1066 ( 6t h C i r . 1987) (s t at i ng t hat“[i ] ti s cl eart hatgovernm ent al42 compul s i on ei t hert o do orr efr ai n fr om doi ng an act forbi dden or
r equi r e d b yo n e ’ s r e l i g i o n , o rt o a f f i r m ord i s a v o w a b e l i ef forbi dden orr equi r ed byone’ s r el i gi on, i s t he evi l pr ohi bi t ed by the F ree E x erc ise C laus e.” ). T h e c o n ce p t i s a sim p le on e. “In
e ss e n c e , th e sta te m a y n o t c o m p e l a n in d iv id u a l to a c t co n tra ryto hi s r el i gi ous bel i efs
. ” A rnold, supra , 8 8 0 F .2 d a t 3 1 4
. A s w e pr evi ous l yn ot ed, M el i s s a ar gues t hatheral l egat i on t hats he w as “t ol d t o t ake the pi l l s ” and mi s l ed by t he des i gnat i on of “e m erg en cycontr ace pt i on” i n t he l i t er atur e pr ovi ded by D efe ndant s es t abl i s hes t he r equi r ed coe r ci on. Howev e r , s he does notal l ege thats he i nfor m ed the cl i ni c s t aff that herr el i gi ous b e lief s w o u ld p re v e n t h e r f

ro m tak in g th e p ill s if d o in g so c o u ld pr eventt he i m pl ant at i on of a poss i bl yfert i l i zed ovum. N ordoes
s he al l ege thats he eve ri nqui r ed about t he pot ent i al eff ectof the pi l l s on a pos s i bl y fert i l i zed ovum
. O ur di s cus s i on of the abs ence of coe r ci on i s equal l yr el evanther e. Pl ai nt i ffs do notcont end t hatD efe ndant s actual l ycompel l ed M el i s s a t o take the pi l l s , or t hatanyof them pre vent ed herfrom cons ul t i ng herpar ent s or any one el s e bef

or e s h e too k t hem. I ns t ead, t hei rC om pl ai nt
s ugges t s t hat Fedor ova “m i s l ed” M el i s s a as t o t he cons equenc es of t aki ng emer gencycontr ace pt i on byadvi s i ng M el i s s a t hatt heC our t s rul i ng on R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i ons m ayt ake j udi ci al 11 no t i ce of pu bli c records. See O ran v. Staff ord , 226 F
. 3d 275, 289 ( 3d C i r . 2000)
. T he C om m i s s i o nerof the Food and D rug A dm i ni s t r at i on’ s announce m entr egardi ng t he s afe t yand eff i cac yof or al contr acept i ves forus e as emer gency co n tr ac ep ti o n is a d o cu m en t p u b li sh ed in th e F ed era l R eg ist er. I ti s t her efor e a publ i c r ecor d of w hi ch w e mayt ake j u d i ci al not i ce. W e cons i deri t , notfor the tru t h of i t s cont ent s , but r ather as evi dence of the i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded byt he fe der al governm entt o heal t hcar e pr ovi der s r egar di ng t he purpos e and eff ectof the emer gencycontr ace pt i on r egi m en. 43 p ills w o u ld p re v e n t h e r f ro m g e ttin g p re g n a n t. See A pp. at17a19a. W e ar e unabl e t o concl ude thatM el i s s a w as compel l ed or
c o e rc e d to a c t c o n tr a ry to h e r r e lig io u s b e lie f s . M or eover , Fedor ova’ s s t at ementw as noti nacc ur at e, nor
w as i tm i s l eadi ng undert he ci r cumst an ces her e. T he U ni t ed St at es Food and D rug A dm i ni s t r at i on has appr oved or al contr ace pt i ves s uch as N or det t e forus e as emer gency
c o n tra c e p tio n f

o llo w in g se x u a l in ter c o u rse in th e d o sa g e g iv e n to M e lis s a . See 6 2 F e d . R e g . 8 6 1 0
. D e p e n d in g u p o n th e p o in t a 11
w om an i s ati n herm ens t rual cy cl e w hen havi ng unpr ot ect ed i nt er cour s e, t he emer gencycontr ace pt i on r egi m en, as des cr i bed byt he FD A , m aypr eventovul at i on, di s rupt fert i l i zat i on, or in h ib it im p la n ta tio n o f

a f e rt iliz e d e g g in th e u te ru s . I d. T he FD A char act er i zes t he N or det t e re gi m en t hat M el i s s a w as gi ven44 as “one o f

t h e mos twi d e l ye mpl o y e d me t h o d s o f p r e g n a n cy pr event i on. ” I

d. A ccor di ng t o t he FD A , “[e ] m er gency
c o n tra c e p tio n p ill s a r e n o t ef f e c tiv e if th e w o m a n is p re g n a n t; t heyactbydel ay i ng ori nhi bi t i ng ovul at i on, and/ or al t er i ng tubal tra n s p o rto f sp erm an d /or o v a (the reb yinh ibit ing fe rt il izati o n ), and/ or al t er i ng t he en d o m etri um ( t her eby i nhi bi t i ng i m pl ant at i on)
. ” I

d. a t 8 6 1 1 . F u rt h e rm o re , [s ] tudi es of combi ned or al contr ace pt i ves i nadvert ent l yt aken e ar l yi n pr egna n cyhave not s how n t hatt he drugs have a n adver s e ef fec ton t he fe tus, an d w arn ing s co n ce rnin g su ch ef fe cts w ere rem ov ed from l abeli ng several y ears ago . T here i s, t her efor e, no evi dence t hat
. . . em er gency contr ace pt ion, w i l l have a n adver s e ef fec ton an e s t a b l i s h e d p r e g n a n c y. Id
. A s th e f

e d e ra l ag e n c y“ re sp o n sib le f o r pr o tec tin g th e p u b lic h e a lth b ya s s u ri n g th e s a f e ty, ef f ic a c y , a n d s e c u ri ty o f

h u m a n . .

. drugs . . . and hel pi ng t he publ i c gett he ac cur at e, s ci ence - bas ed inf o rm ati o n theyn ee d to u se m ed icin es,” the D ef en d an ts w ere enti t l ed to r el yon t he F D A ’s sci enti fi c and po licycon cl usi on s. See F D A M i s s i on St a t e m ent , avai l abl e at h ttp ://w w w .f

d a .g o v /o p a c o m /m o rec h o ices/m issi o n . h tm l. In p arti cu lar, D ef

en d an ts w ere en titl ed to relyu p o n the F D A ’s concl us i on t h at s ci ent i fi c s tudi es demonst r at ed thatemer gencyJ udge St apl et on w oul d as s um e ar guendo t hatt her e maybe 12 situ a tio n s in w h ic h a sta te a c to r’s in ten tio n a l d e c e p tio n w ill pr ov i de the “c oer ci on” nec es s aryfora vi ol at i on of the Fr ee (c o n tin u e d ...) 45 contr ace pt i on does not have a n adver s e ef fec ton an “e s t abl i s hed p re g n a n c y .” 6 2 F e d . R e g . 8 6 1 0
. T he governm ent al act or s her e m u st , of cour s e, r es pect Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r el i gi ous bel i efs aboutw hen l i fe begi ns and w hat
cons t i tut es an abort i on; how ever , t h e Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e,

“ c a n n o t b e u n d e rsto o d to re q u ire th e G o v e rn m e n t to c o n d u c t it s
ow n i nt ernal aff

ai rs i n w ay s t hatcomportw i t h t he r el i gi ous b eli ef s o f pa rt icular ci ti ze n s . . . .” Lyng , 485 U
. S. at448 ( quot i ng B ow en v. R oy , 4 7 6 U .S
. 6 9 3 , 6 9 9 -70 0 (19 8 6 )). “[I ] nci dent al eff

ect s of governm entpr ogr ams, w hi ch .
. . have no ten d e n c yto c o e rc e in d iv id u a ls in to a c tin g c o n tra ryto th e ir
r el i g i o u s b e l i e f

s , [ d o n o t ] r e q u i r e t h e g o v e r n me n tt o b r i ng forw ar d a compel l i n g just i fi cat i on fori t s ot herw i s e l aw ful act i ons . ” I

d. at450- 451. M el i s s a fa i l ed t o di s cl os e herr el i gi ous b eli ef s ab o u t abo rt ion to a n yD ef en d an t, an d D ef

en d an ts w ere ent i t l ed t o bas e t hei r act i ons on M el i s s a’ s r eques tforemer gency contr ace pt i on and the FD A ’ s char act er i zat i on of t he emer gency contr ace pt i on M el i s s a w as gi ven. 12(
. . . cont i nued) 12 E xer ci s e C l aus e. H e w oul d hol d, how ever , t hatt hi s i s nots uch a case. M el i ssa’ s on l y cl ai m t o h ave b een d ecei ved i s that M s. F e d o ro v a le d h e r to b e liev e th a t th e p ill s w o u ld o n lyp re v e n t a pr egnanc yw hen, i n fac t , t heyal so w oul d keep a fert i l i zed e gg fro m b ec o m ing im p lanted in th e u terus, th ere b y , in M eli ssa’s vi ew , caus i ng an abort i on. W hi l e i t is a ppar ent l yt rue that N or d e t t e “ a l t e r s . . . t h e e n d o me t r i u m ( t h e r e b yi n h i b i t i ng i m plant at i on ), ” 62 F ed. R eg. at 86 11 , and i t i s true thatM el i ssa w as nots o advi s ed, M el i s s a di d nott el l any one att he cli n ic of h e r re lig io u s v iew s re g a rd in g a b o rtio n a n d th e re is n o re a so n to beli eve an y on e w as del i berat el yt ry i ng t o m i sl ead M el i ssa i n to vi ol at i ng herr el i gi ous b eli efs
. She does notal l ege i nt ent i onal orr eckl es s dece pt i o n . J udge St apl et on w oul d hol d t hatt he a b s e n c e o f

s u c h a n a l l e g a t i o n i s f

a t a l t o h e rF r e e Ex e r c i s e c l a i m. Lovelace v . Lee , 472 F. 3d 174, 201 ( 4t h C i r . 2006) ( hol di ng t hat “uni nt ended de ni al s of r el i gi ous r igh ts d o notvi ol at e the Fr ee E x erc ise C laus e.”). 46 In a rel at ed and i nterw ov en cl ai m , M el i ssa’ s parent s al so al l ege a fr ee ex erc i s e cl ai m under§ 1983, ar gui ng t hat D efen dan t s prev e n ted t hem from l earni ng of M el i ssa’ s r equ est f o rs o me t h i n g t h a tc o u l d t e r mi n a t e a p r e g n a n c y . Ho we v e r , we
r ei t er at e that th e C ons t i tut i on does noti m pos e an a ffi r m at i ve
o b lig a tio n o n D e f

e n d a n ts to e n su re th a t ch ild re n a b id e b yth e ir p a re n ts w is h e s , v a lu e s , o r r e lig io u s b e lie f s . See D oe , 615 F. 2d at 1168 ( ci t i ng P r i nce , 3 2 1 U. S
. a t1 6 6 )
. M o r e o v e r , e v e n i f we
a s s u m e d , a r

g u e n do, that g iving M eli ssa e m erg ency contr ace pt i on unde rt he s e c i r c ums t a nc e s s omeh ow vi ol a t e d h e rpa r e nt s ’ Fi rs tAm e n d me n tr i g h t s , t h e i r c l a i m w o u l d s t i l l f a i l f o rt h e r e a s o n s we h a v e a lre a d yd isc u ss e d ; th e y h a v e n o t a lleg e d su f f icie n t f a c ts to
e s ta b lis h c o e rc io n , m a n ip u la tio n , o r r e s tr a in t.

I V. CO NC L US I ON B ecause w e ag re e t hat the all egati on s i n P l ai nti ffs’
c o mp l a i n t h a v e f

a i l e d t o s t a t e a c a u s e o f

a c t i o n u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 , we
w ill a f f ir m th e d e c is io n o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .

47