Anspach v. City of Philadelphia: Minors Consent

Coursework Instructions:

Week-4 Questions
TQ4.1: Anspach v. City of Philadelphia: What is the basis of the parents’ constitutional claim? Why does the court reject their claim? Why does the court discuss the case of Doe v. Irwin?
TQ 4.2: Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer: What is the basis of the plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge? Why does the New Jersey Supreme Court hold that the statute violates plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection of the laws?
TQ 4.3: In re E.G.: What is the mature minor doctrine? What are the dissent’s objections to the majority opinion?
TQ 4.4: English & Ford: Under what circumstances does a minor have the right to control access to their personal health information? Assume that state law allows a minor to consent to treatment for a sexually transmitted infection. If a minor consents to and obtains such treatment, does HIPPA prohibit the minor’s physician from disclosing this information to the minor’s parent?
***Week-4 Discussion question – Each questions must be written with least 250 words
DQ 4.1: Assume that E.G., was 14 years old. Given your knowledge of the adolescent brain (which we covered a few weeks ago), who should decide whether to allow E.G., to refuse the life-saving blood transfusions?
DQ 4.2: One study found that, while almost half of all high school students have had sexual intercourse and only 59% used a condom the last time they had sex, many pediatricians did not discuss sex with adolescents during routine checkups. And when they did, the conversation lasted an average of 36 seconds. Another study found that only 20% of adolescents in New Jersey and Pennsylvania had their sexual history documented by their pediatrician during a routine checkup, and less than 4% were tested for sexually transmitted infections. Given that over 80% of teen pregnancies are unplanned, and 1 in 4 sexually active adolescents acquires a sexually transmitted disease, professional associations including the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend that physicians discuss these issues with adolescents. What, if anything, should lawmakers do to increase screening of sexually transmitted diseases and decrease adolescent pregnancy rates?
• Please see the “One study” pdf.
The following is a list of the readings for Week 4 of this course:
1. Cal Fam. Code §§ 6925-6928
2. Anspach v. City of Philadelphia (2007)
3. Plannd Parenthood v. Farmer
4. In re E.G. (Ill. 1989)
5. English & Ford, The HIPAA Privacy Rule and Adolescents
6. HIPAA Privacy Rule and Sharing Information Related to Mental Health (2017)
Week-4 Tutorial questions(TQ4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4) & DQ 4.1 & 4.2 must use the "video transcript" and reading lists.
The Video transcript is listed in the "References"as you use it citations.- Please Indicate it in the writing as "According to video transcript"
The discussion Questions should be written with at least 250 words
The video transcript has uploaded to the files.
The "One Study.pdf" need to be used for answering the question of DQ4.2 and that need to be included in "References"
Instruction is listed on the pdf----> "2022-06-22 07:14 4.TQ.Week-4.docx"
Please make sure that “IT should Contain strong legal analysis and draw upon our readings and other sources.”besides, you are informed of all the issues and argument that should be addressed them accordingly.
Thank you

Coursework Sample Content Preview:

Week-4 Minors Consent
Student Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date
Week-4 Minors Consent
TQ 4.1. Anspach v. City of Philadelphia: What is the basis of the parents’ constitutional claim? Why does the court reject their claim? Why does the court discuss the case of Doe v. Irwin?
In Anspach versus the City of Philadelphia (2007), the parents' constitutional claim was that the clinic violated their constitutional rights to parental guidance and bodily integrity. The parents cited a violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Clause protects the fundamental rights of parents to make decisions regarding their children's care, custody, and control. Melissa's parents alleged that the Appellees violated Melissa's constitutional right to get advice from the parents on issues relating to the minor's religious freedom, upbringing, and medical care. The parents indicated that the crisis contraception wants to keep them from knowing about the potential pregnancy, violating the parents' freedom to decide on health matters concerning their child.
The court rejected their claim stating that while parents' liberty interests are recognized where the state mandates or prohibits anything that interferes with those liberties, in this case, Melissa's parents did not demonstrate that the State interfered with their parental rights. The court did not find evidence that the clinic prevented or discouraged Melissa from engaging the parents regarding the emergency contraceptives. The court established that the clinic did not coerce Melissa to take the contraception pills. The court further indicated that the right of parents to care must be balanced against minors' constitutional rights to privacy. Hence, the court held that any legal right under state regulation to parental notice is dependent upon protected limits, including the minor's freedoms to security (United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 2007).
The court discusses the case of Doe v. Irwin because it is similar to Anspach v. City of Philadelphia. In Doe, parents of minors sued a publicly funded planning center. They alleged that distributing contraceptives to minors without notifying them violated their constitutional rights as parents. Although the Center served adults and minors, it did not advertise any of its services to minors or encourage them to attend. The Center allowed minors to participate in sessions with or without their parents' approval. It also included prescriptions of contraceptives that were given to the minors with or without their parent's knowledge or consent. Although the district court held that the distribution of contraceptives without parents' consent violated their constitutional rights, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision. The district court relied on Supreme Court cases regarding the right to privacy and held that minors' right to privacy included the right to get contraceptives. Hence Doe v. Irwin provided a basis for the court to demonstrate that the Appellees upheld the minor's right to privacy, which meant that the clinic did not need to notify the parents.
TQ 4.2: Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer: What is the basis of the plaintiffs’ equal protection challen...

Updated on January 26, 2024

Get the Whole Paper!

Not exactly what you need?

Do you need a custom essay? Order right now:

Order

Anspach v. City of Philadelphia: Minors Consent

You Might Also Like Other Topics Related to abortion: