Florida’s Interim Court of Appeals has fueled major constitutional clashes that could reconstruct abortion access and state law on parental and fetal rights.
case, Dosage vIt began as a Mill-of-the-Mill judicial bypass case. This is when a small number of petitions petitions petitioned with the court for approval to do something that normally requires parental consent. 1970s, then Roev. WadeDetermining that the federal constitution protected the right to abortion, the state began to pass laws requiring minors to obtain notice or consent from their parents before seeking an abortion. The US Supreme Court was held in 1979. Bellottiv. Baird Such laws could only be constitutional if they allow a judicial bypass hearing, allowing minors to have an abortion if they can demonstrate that she is mature enough to make her decision. States like Florida responded by adding bypass options to the law.
However, in 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health AgencyThe court was reversed egg. The following year, Florida lawmakers passed laws that criminalized most abortions when fetal heart activity could normally be detected about six weeks after a patient’s last menstrual period. State laws regarding parental involvement remained for a very small subset of minors who could identify pregnancy and secure a bypass order before the state ban began.
Earlier this year, a 17-year-old Florida girl tried to achieve this feat. The judge lacked the maturity for the girl to make her own decision. As Jane Daw, she appealed to Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals, seeking to overturn a lower court’s denial of permission to obtain an abortion. However, the broader challenge foundations – the challenges that could completely override the bypass process were already in place.
In 2024, another Interim Court of Appeals in Florida, the first local court of appeal, was set to hear minors’ appeals against a judge’s decision to deny abortion requests without the involvement of parents. The court held that there was no parent or other party named to oppose the minor’s request, and therefore there was no “case or controversy” that established jurisdiction. In agreement, Judge Bradford Thomas previewed what the court did if the court had jurisdiction. It was the right decision to override the bypass provisions.
So, when the DOE sued, the fifth district was ready. To ensure they could hear the case, the judge invited the Attorney General to submit a brief from a friend of the Court against the DOE. The Attorney General then requested intervention, claiming that the bypass option was unconstitutional as it allowed minors to access medical care without the consent of their parents.
The court with the Attorney General emphasizes that Florida’s constitution grants broader custody than the Supreme Court has identified under the 14th Amendment. He also said there is a rich tradition of customary law that allows a child to grant the right of a parent to agree to before receiving treatment, regardless of the child’s age or the treatment of the problem.
The court failed to reach the Attorney General’s claim that state laws that infringe parental rights should be subject to strict scrutiny, the most demanding standard of judicial review. Instead, the court determined that bypass options were not necessary to reach this issue because they could not afford the basic legitimate process for their parents. If parents had the right to attend a hearing on the custody of their children, the courts said they certainly had the right to attend in regards to the “most basic” rights – they had the right to decide whether the child should have an abortion.
The court was not moved by the DOE’s claim that bypass options are designed to ensure the privacy of minors. Therefore, parents will not receive or attend notifications of bypass procedures. Similarly, the courts show that the history of common law regarding parental rights regarding child care is actually much more complicated than the Attorney General has allowed.
The invalidation of the court’s bypass clause invites the Florida Supreme Court to erode what abortion access remains within the state. The incident then raises an even more dramatic attack on the right to abortion: the illusion of the concept of fetal personality.
Under Florida law, parental rights are protected under Article 2, Article 2 of the Florida Constitution. This suggests that “all natural people, women and men, may be equal and have inviolable rights before the law. The justice of some Florida Supreme Courts suggests that this language recognizes their own rights, not just minors seeking abortion, but also the parents of the fetus themselves.
The 2024 decision-making finds that voting measures on the right to abortion could move forward for Florida voters, which could confuse voters because three opposing judicialists who say that voting proposals could confuse voters because they are not informed of how such amendments affect “constitutional human rights applied to the fetus.” That word meant people The article applies the rights, such as the moment the egg is fertilized and the rights of life that apply to the person. Majority justice also dismissed this personality argument. In the footnote, they framed the question as “unstable” because the previous law “assuming that the human being born was not a person of the Constitution.” The fetal personality came to the Florida Supreme Court last year, even in the oral debate for this. Muniz joined the majority in the voting initiative case.
Jane Doe’s case will almost certainly end before the Florida Supreme Court. I don’t know if the Attorney General will raise questions about the fetal rights regarding appeals. However, the court may choose to address other questions about the meaning of Article I, beyond what concerns the scope of parental rights.
The interests of the award regarding parental rights or fetal rights may appear relatively low in a state that has already criminalised virtually all abortions. However, such an award will have real consequences. If the court is aware of sweeping parents’ rights, access to abortion under any circumstances, such as scenarios where abuse or sexual violence is alleged, can be difficult for minors.
And the decision of that word people Applying it from the moment of fertilization has an even more drastic effect. Last fall, the voting initiative to amend the state constitution to protect reproductive freedoms won about 57% of votes, but failed because the amendment requires 60% to pass 60% in the state. Florida reproductive advocates have vowed to seek such an amendment again. Even the successful amendment of this kind can have uncertain fate if the Florida Supreme Court already determines that the constitution protects the right to live in the unborn child. How does justice adjust conflict rights?
Furthermore, decisions on fetal rights could make the state’s extremely strict abortion restrictions unconstitutional. If the fetus is given a personality, it is questioned when it is legal to allow abortion very early in pregnancy, when there is a certain health threat, or when sexual assault or incest.
The impact can reach beyond abortion. Last year, when the Alabama Supreme Court held that the embryo was counted as a person for the purpose of the illegal death of minor state law, the decision was Lepagev. Centerfor Reproductive Medicinestops in vitro fertilization in the state. The Florida ruling establishing that constitutional rights begin at fertilization could similarly have even more reachable effects on fertility treatment.
It’s too early to know what’s going to happen next Dosage v. What’s clear is that a showdown over parental rights, abortion access, fertility treatment and more is being brewed in Florida, which could reconstruct the state’s reproductive rights situation.
Mary Ziegler is Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. Her new book, Personality: A new civil war over reproductionnow available.
Suggested Quote: Mary Ziegler, The fight over abortion for Florida teens can have widespread consequencessᴛᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 27, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/dispute-over- aa-corporid-florida-cehlave-have-far-reaching-consequences