ACLU Asks Appeals Court to Protect Teens’ Access to Reproductive Health Care
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
Says Opinion Issued by Former Kansas Attorney General Intimidates Teens and Puts Their Health and Safety at Risk
DENVER - The American Civil Liberties Union today asked the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit to protect teens’ access to confidential
reproductive health care. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the
court, the ACLU said an opinion issued by the former Attorney General of Kansas
intimidates teens from seeking medical care, and puts their health and safety at
risk.
“Forcing health care providers to report all consensual sexual
activity of teens has nothing to do with protecting their health and safety and
everything to do with furthering a political agenda,” said Brigitte Amiri, a
staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “Mandatory
reporting will actually discourage teens from seeking reproductive health
care.”
In June 2003, former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline issued an
opinion that radically changed state law to require health care providers who
are mandatory reporters of sexual abuse to report all sexual activity of teens
under 16 years of age - including consensual sexual activity between teens of
the same age. The Attorney General’s interpretation of the law would have
resulted in a government information bank that parents could periodically check
to determine whether their son or daughter had sought reproductive health
care.
A district court ruled in April 2006 that the
Attorney General’s interpretation of the mandatory reporting statute violates
teens’ constitutional rights, and that such reporting will force many minors to
forgo reproductive health care altogether.
“The government cannot
mandate good family communication,” said Brett Shirk, Executive Director of the
ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. “State surveillance of teens’ health
care decision will not transform a household with poor lines of communication
into a paradigm of the perfect American family.”
Major medical
groups, including the American Medical Association, have opposed this
interpretation of Kansas law because it intimidates teens from seeking
reproductive health care. When teenagers don’t visit family planning
providers, not only do they forego contraceptive services, they also miss or
dangerously postpone screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases,
routine gynecological exams, and other vital health care services.
Guarantees of confidentiality are one of the prime factors influencing whether a
teenager will seek vital health services.
Today’s case is Aid For
Women v. Foulston. Lawyers on the friend-of-the-court brief include Amiri
and Jennifer Dalven of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.