Because of the potential importance of the ruling, groups on opposite sides of the abortion debate have asked the high court to redact information that might identify the minor, then make the judicial record public.
"The public's right to know can be served without in any way compromising the privacy rights of the minor," says a petition filed last week by media representatives, including the publishers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Inquirer and Daily News.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and a group of antiabortion organizations that includes the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation also submitted briefs to the high court, and shared the documents with The Inquirer. The state Attorney General's Office, which filed a separate brief, has not released it. Although the records remain sealed, the Post-Gazette reported that the minor was three months shy of her 18th birthday last March when she asked Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Philip Ignelzi to let her get an abortion without parental consent.
When Ignelzi refused, she appealed to the state Superior Court, which upheld Ignelzi. The girl wound up getting permission from one parent and went ahead with the abortion, the Post-Gazette reported.
The lawyers who represented her pro bono - Randall McKinney and Howard Elbling of the Allegheny County Office of Conflict Counsel - did not respond to requests for comment.
Judicial bypasses are almost always granted because of the legal framework set by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The nation's high court said states can require parental consultation or consent, but in light of the "grave and indelible" consequences of denying the right to an abortion, a minor must be given an alternative to involving her parents, such as getting a judge's approval.
