Opinion ID: 1754160
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: -Felix Frankfurter [1]

Text: It is the province of the legislature to make the laws; and of the courts to enforce them. Barrett v. Indiana, 229 U.S. 26, 30, 33 S.Ct. 692, 57 L.Ed. 1050 (1913) In deciding this case we squarely confront the question of whether, as judges, we should apply the Parental Notification Act as it is written by the Legislature or according to our own personal beliefs. In reaching the decision to grant Jane Doe's application, we have put aside our personal viewpoints and endeavored to do our job as judgesthat is, to interpret and apply the Legislature's will as it has been expressed in the statute. Unquestionably, in passing the Parental Notification Act the Legislature intended to protect parents' rights by encouraging minors to involve their parents in the profound decision to proceed with or terminate a pregnancy. [2] The Legislature also chose to provide a mechanism for a minor, under certain circumstances, to obtain an abortion without notifying her parents. In our system of government, it is the Legislature's job to fashion policy. As judges, we respect and defer to the policy choice our Legislature made to encourage parental involvement in such an important matter. Similarly, we respect and defer to the Legislature's policy decision to include a judicial bypass procedure in the statute. Our task is to determine how the Legislature intended that process to work.
In creating the bypass procedure, the Legislature delegated no authority to the courts to determine the grounds upon which to grant a bypass. Rather, it specifically enumerated the grounds that, if shown, require the courts to grant a parental notification waiver. Neither did the Legislature give courts authority to decide the level of proof a minor must show to prove that she is entitled to a bypass. And although the Legislature could have chosen to impose a higher standard of proof, such as by requiring the minor to establish the statutory requisites by clear and convincing proof or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it did not do so. Instead, it set the level of proof at the lower preponderance of the evidence standard. [3] See TEX. FAM.CODE § 33.003(i). The importance of the evidentiary burden is self-evident. As amicus curiae the Texas Coalition for Parents' Rights recognizes: Evidentiary standards express the degree of certainty in the outcome that the factfinder must have. Because interests of differing constitutional and societal value come before courts, differing degrees of certainty are required. (Citations omitted). The Texas Coalition urges this Court to apply a burden of proof similar to the clear and convincing standard the Nebraska Supreme Court adopted in In re Petition of Anonymous 1, 251 Neb. 424, 558 N.W.2d 784, 787 (1997). But the Nebraska court was free to adopt a heightened burden of proof because the Nebraska legislature did not articulate a proof standard. Our Legislature mandated a proof standard. For this Court to impose a standard different than that our Legislature chose would usurp the legislative function and amount to judicial activism.
The Legislature could easily have crafted other more stringent standards for a minor to obtain a judicial bypass, constitutional concerns aside. [4] But as it is written, the statute gives the minor who decides to seek a judicial bypass a number of advantages. For instance, the minor is the only party to the bypass proceeding. See TEX. FAM.CODE § 33.003. She is entitled to representation by an attorney of her choice or a court-appointed attorney ad litem, and the court must appoint a guardian ad litem to advocate for the minor's best interests. See id. § 33.003(e). The Legislature chose not to provide for anyone to represent any other interests. And although the Family Code requires proof by clear and convincing evidence in other matters, the Legislature deliberately chose proof by a preponderance of the evidence in bypass proceedings. Compare id. § 33.003(i) with id. § 161.001. Further, if the trial court rules in the minor's favor, there is no appeal, but if it rules against her, she has access to two levels of appellate review. See id. § 33.004. Finally, the bypass statute's default provisions favor the minor. If the trial court fails to rule on the minor's application and issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law within the period allowed, the statute deems the application granted and the minor may have an abortion without notifying her parents. See id. § 33.003(h). Likewise, if the court of appeals does not rule within its allotted time, the statute deems the appeal granted. See id. § 33.004(b). This Court must interpret the statute as it is written; we are not free to ignore the judicial bypass language. The statute allows a minor to avoid notifying a parent if she can show that: (1) she is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to obtain an abortion without notifying a parent; (2) notifying a parent would not be in her best interest; or (3) notifying a parent may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor. See id. § 33.003(i). Concerning the first ground, the Legislature could have required that the minor be fully informed, rather than sufficiently well informed. The Legislature had before it but rejectedat least one bill that would have required physicians to supply specified, detailed information about abortion procedures and alternatives to all women, including minors, in order to obtain their informed consent. See Tex. S.B. 65, 76 th Leg., R.S. (1999). But the Legislature opted in the Parental Notification Act to impose only the more general requirement that a minor be sufficiently well informed. [5] Moreover, to meet the third exception, the Legislature could have required the minor to show that notifying the parents would lead, or even would likely lead to abuse of the minor rather than the lower standard the Legislature chosethat notification may lead to abuse. We do not mean to imply that all these more stringent standards would ultimately pass constitutional muster, but only point out that the Legislature made clear and deliberate choices about the statutory wording. That the Legislature chose this particular statutory scheme does not mean that it did not intend the bypass procedure to be meaningful, as we said in Doe 1(I). See 19 S.W.3d at 255. There, we looked to other states' jurisprudence interpreting the laws upon which our Legislature modeled our statute. We did so to ascertain what the Legislature intended that a minor must show to demonstrate that she is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to obtain an abortion without notifying a parent. The factors we articulated there, and which we apply in this case, reflect other states' experiences, which are consistent with this Court's effort to determine what the Legislature intended by the words it chose.
Senate Bill 30's author and sponsor have filed an amicus brief, joined by other legislators, [6] to provid[e] information regarding the legislative intent and suggesting that our decisions in Doe 1(I), Doe 2, Doe 3, and Doe 4(I) interpreting the three statutory prongs do not set a high enough standard. We note that it is not the function of this Court to set the standard, but rather to interpret the standard the Legislature set. We further note that courts construing statutory language should give little weight to post-enactment statements by legislators. Explanations produced, after the fact, by individual legislators are not statutory history, and can provide little guidance as to what the legislature collectively intended. C & H Nationwide, Inc. v. Thompson, 903 S.W.2d 315, 328-29 (Tex.1994) (Hecht, J., concurring and dissenting) (citations omitted); see also Rogers v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 611 F.2d 1074, 1082 (5th Cir.1980) (what happened after a statute's enactment may be history and it may come from members of Congress, but it is not part of the legislative history of the original enactment); General Chem. Corp. v. De La Lastra, 852 S.W.2d 916, 923 (Tex.1993). We believe the Parental Notification Act's legislative history supports our decision. The amici argue that the Legislature intended that a bypass should be rare and exceptional. And the legislative history reflects that the legislators believed that only a very small number of minors ten percent of the thirty-nine percent of minors who did not involve their parents before the Act's passage, or about 216 minorswould seek a bypass. See Fiscal Note, Tex.C.S.S.B. 30, 76 th Leg., R.S. (1999); Debate on Tex.C.S.S.B. 30 on the Floor of the Senate, 76 th Leg., R.S. (March 17, 1999) (statement of Senator Shapiro) (tapes available from Senate Staff Services Office). In this sense, it is true that the Legislature thought the statute would make it harder for minors to obtain abortions without notifying a parent and that few requests for judicial bypass were anticipated. But once a bypass was sought, it is less clear that the legislators intended them to be rare[ly] granted or intended to construct an exceptional evidentiary barrier. While the fiscal note for Senate Bill 30's committee substitute reflects the Department of Health's economic assumption that 50 percent of applications filed by minors are denied and appealed, [7] Fiscal Note, Tex.C.S.S.B. 30, 76 th Leg., R.S. (1999), a number of statements by the bill's authors, sponsors, and sponsors of companion legislation, including some of the amici, suggest that the Legislature did not contemplate as strenuous a statutory burden for the minor as the amici now argue. For example, Representative Wohlgemuth, the author of the House companion to Senate Bill 30, described the judicial bypass as  an extremely low bar to begin with and represented that obtaining a bypass is not going to be a problem. See Debate on the Floor of the House, 76 th Leg., R.S. (May 22, 1999) (statement of Representative Wohlgemuth) (audio available at http://www.house.state.tx.us/audio/archivhc.htm or tapes available from House Video and Audio Services) (emphasis added). She noted that, although she would personally like to see a higher barrier, over ninety percent of the judicial bypasses were granted in other states with similar bypass provisions. See id. To allay concerns some legislators voiced that obtaining a judicial bypass would be too onerous for a minor, Senator Shapiro described an attorney's experience who works with Planned Parenthood in Nebraska representing minors who apply for a waiver under Nebraska's similar bypass procedure: in all of the years that she's done this, one minor child, one, that was turned down, not only by the district court, but also by the court of appeals. And the reason this child was turned down was because she was 12 years old. Now that's real world. The Parental Notification Act: Hearing on Tex.C.S.S.B. 30 Before the Senate Comm. on Human Services, 76th Leg., R.S. 24 (March 10, 1999) (statement of Senator Shapiro) (transcript available from Senate Staff Services Office) (emphasis added). Senator Shapiro emphasized in Senate floor debate that, under the comparable Nebraska bypass procedure (which, we note, applies a higher clear and convincing proof standard), ninety-nine percent of bypasses had been granted. See Debate on Tex.C.S.S.B. 30 on the Floor of the Senate, 76th Leg., R.S. (March 17, 1999) (statement of Senator Shapiro) (tapes available from Senate Staff Services Office). [8] While the amici legislators now express disagreement with how we read the Legislature's enactment, we can only apply an interpretation that comports with the statute's existing plain language, structure, and legislative history. If the Legislature, as a body, agrees with amici that we misunderstood their intent, it is the Legislature's prerogative to amend the statute to give us different guidance. This is precisely how the separation of powers doctrine should work. While we respect the amici's views, we are aware that [j]udges who pay attention to subsequent expressions of legislative intent not embodied in any statute may break rather than enforce the legislative contract. Richard Posner, The Federal Courts 270 (1985).
The Court granted Doe's application on March 10 th, noting that opinions would follow. We did so because the record indicated both that Doe was entitled to a bypass and out of concern that any further delay might expose her to greater risk. Doe testified that a sonogram performed on February 19, 2000, showed that she was eleven weeks and one day pregnant as of that date. She therefore was fourteen weeks pregnant when we issued our order on March 10. Evidence admitted at the hearing indicated that the safest method for performing an early abortion, a suction curettage or vacuum aspiration procedure, is used until the fourteenth week of pregnancy. See generally Women's Medical Prof'l Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 198 (6th Cir.1997) (stating [s]uction curettage can sometimes be performed up to the fifteenth week of pregnancy). There was also evidence that the usual method for a second trimester abortion is dilation and evacuation, a longer, more complicated, and more invasive procedure. Other evidence indicated that the risk of abortion increases as the pregnancy advances. See generally City of Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 467, 103 S.Ct. 2481, 76 L.Ed.2d 687 (1983) (O'Connor, J., dissenting) (quoting bulletin of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists: Regardless of advances in abortion technology, midtrimester terminations will likely remain more hazardous, expensive, and emotionally disturbing for a woman than early abortions.), overruled on other grounds by Planned Parenthood of So. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 882, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992); Greenville Women's Clinic v. Bryant, 66 F.Supp.2d 691, 705 (D.S.C.1999) (stating [i]t is undisputed that second trimester abortions are significantly more risky to the health of women than first trimester abortions.). We issued our order on the concern that Doe be able to undergo the less risky suction curettage procedure, if that option was still available to her and that was her decision. While the stage of Doe's pregnancy at the time of the hearing and her doctor's general policies about the procedure are in the record, the exact date that Doe would no longer be eligible for the safer procedure is not. Any significant delay would have guaranteed that Doe could not have the safer procedure. Justices Hecht and Owen contend that we were wrong, and from their reading of the record the time for performing the safer procedure had just passed. The record does not definitively settle the issue, and we made our decision on the side of the minor's safety. Additionally, Doe initiated these proceedings more than a month before our March 10th order. Thus, we had to also consider that any additional delay might call into question whether the proceedings were sufficiently expeditious to pass constitutional muster. See Ohio v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 497 U.S. at 513, 110 S.Ct. 2972; Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 644, 99 S.Ct. 3035, 61 L.Ed.2d 797 (1979). Moreover, the rules governing these proceedings specifically provide that [t]he Court must rule as soon as possible. Tex. Parental Notification R. 4.3. The Parental Notification Rules expressly recognize that the expedited nature of these proceedings may require a court of appeals to issue its opinion as many as sixty days after rendering judgment. See Tex. Parental Notification R. 3.3(e). While Rule 3.3, by its terms, applies only to the intermediate courts, the concept underlying the rule is entirely consistent with requiring this Court to rule as soon as possible. And although Justices Hecht and Owen assert that Doe did not seek expedited relief in this Court, her notice of appeal specifically stated, in large, bold-faced type: PLEASE EXPEDITE. [9] Justices Hecht and Owen also suggest, erroneously, that we issued our March 10th order without deliberating the merits of Doe's appeal. Because the judicial canons prohibit us from disclosing the substance or course of our deliberations, we cannot describe the process leading to our decision to issue the order. [10] Nevertheless, any suggestion that we issued our March 10th order without a majority consensus on the merits is incorrect because a majority consensus was necessary to issue the order. Moreover, although not our standard practice, we have previously issued orders with opinions to follow. In Texas Water Commission v. Dellana , we conditionally granted a writ of mandamus with an opinion to follow. See 849 S.W.2d 808, 809 n. 1 (Tex.1993) (citing 36 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 556 (Feb. 17, 1993)). And more recently, in Republican Party v. Dietz, we granted a stay with an opinion to follow that provided all the relief requested. See 940 S.W.2d 86, 87, 94 (Tex.1997); see also, e.g., Davenport v. Garcia, 837 S.W.2d 73, 73 (Tex.1992); Painter v. Shaner, 667 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.1984); Coalson v. City Council of Victoria, 610 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Tex.1980). While we acknowledge that this procedure is not routine, the nature of these proceedings and the record presented necessitated it in this case.
The United States Supreme Court has observed that abortion is a divisive and highly-charged issue. See Casey, 505 U.S. at 866, 869, 112 S.Ct. 2791. Thus, we recognize that judges' personal views may inspire inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric. Nevertheless, the issue's highly-charged nature does not excuse judges who impose their own personal convictions into what must be a strictly legal inquiry. We might personally prefer, as citizens and parents, that a minor honor her parents' right to be involved in such a profound decision. But the Legislature has said that Doe may consent to an abortion without notifying her parents if she demonstrates that she is mature and sufficiently well informed. As judges, we cannot ignore the statute or the record before us. Whatever our personal feelings may be, we must respect the rule of law. Casey, 505 U.S. at 868, 112 S.Ct. 2791.