{"title":"<i>Deanda v. Becerra</i>: The Implications of the New Legal Attack on Longstanding Title X Policy.","authors":"Elizabeth Tobin-Tyler, Aidea Downie","doi":"10.1017/amj.2025.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This commentary analyzes the recent attacks on adolescents' access to contraception by religious and parental rights activists and the conservative legal movement. Specifically, we focus on <i>Deanda v. Becerra</i>, a 2024 case in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Texas state law requiring parental consent for minors to access contraception is not preempted by a longstanding policy under Title X of the federal Public Health Service Act that prohibits clinics receiving federal funding from requiring parental consent or notification. We first describe existing laws governing minors' confidential access to reproductive health care, including the federal constitutional framework for parental rights, state parental notification and consent laws, and Title X, the federal law that provides federal funds to reproductive health care clinics for low-income people. We then examine and critique the Federal District Court ruling in <i>Deanda</i>, which elevated individual religious and parental rights over public health concerns, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in that case, which undermined federal public health authority and jeopardized access to reproductive health care for low-income adolescents. Finally, we assess the public health and reproductive rights implications of restricted access to reproductive health care for minors and consider possible future directions and advocacy opportunities for reproductive, public health and legal advocates to promote continued access to contraception for adolescents despite mounting legal challenges.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"51 1","pages":"166-177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2025.21","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This commentary analyzes the recent attacks on adolescents' access to contraception by religious and parental rights activists and the conservative legal movement. Specifically, we focus on Deanda v. Becerra, a 2024 case in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Texas state law requiring parental consent for minors to access contraception is not preempted by a longstanding policy under Title X of the federal Public Health Service Act that prohibits clinics receiving federal funding from requiring parental consent or notification. We first describe existing laws governing minors' confidential access to reproductive health care, including the federal constitutional framework for parental rights, state parental notification and consent laws, and Title X, the federal law that provides federal funds to reproductive health care clinics for low-income people. We then examine and critique the Federal District Court ruling in Deanda, which elevated individual religious and parental rights over public health concerns, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in that case, which undermined federal public health authority and jeopardized access to reproductive health care for low-income adolescents. Finally, we assess the public health and reproductive rights implications of restricted access to reproductive health care for minors and consider possible future directions and advocacy opportunities for reproductive, public health and legal advocates to promote continued access to contraception for adolescents despite mounting legal challenges.
这篇评论分析了最近宗教和父母权利活动家以及保守的法律运动对青少年获得避孕措施的攻击。具体来说,我们关注的是Deanda v. Becerra,这是一个2024年的案件,第五巡回上诉法院认为,根据联邦公共卫生服务法第十章,禁止接受联邦资金的诊所要求父母同意或通知父母的长期政策,德克萨斯州法律要求未成年人获得父母同意的避孕措施并不优先于此。我们首先介绍有关未成年人秘密获得生殖保健的现行法律,包括关于父母权利的联邦宪法框架、州父母通知和同意法,以及为低收入人群生殖保健诊所提供联邦资金的联邦法律第十章。然后,我们审查并批评联邦地区法院在迪安达案中的裁决,该裁决将个人宗教和父母权利置于公共健康问题之上,以及第五巡回上诉法院在该案中的裁决,该裁决损害了联邦公共卫生权威,并危及低收入青少年获得生殖保健的机会。最后,我们评估限制未成年人获得生殖保健对公共卫生和生殖权利的影响,并考虑生殖、公共卫生和法律倡导者未来可能的方向和宣传机会,以促进青少年继续获得避孕药具,尽管面临越来越多的法律挑战。
期刊介绍:
desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.