Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton recently celebrated a significant legal turn regarding the Biden administration’s parental consent policy for minors seeking contraception.
He decided to drop a lawsuit that formally contested a federal rule allowing teenagers to access confidential contraception via the Title X program without needing parental consent.
This legal saga, which kicked off back in July, revolved around a provision Paxton believed went against a previous ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
According to Paxton’s office, the White House has communicated to a U.S. district court that they won’t enforce the contested regulation within Texas, leading to what his team sees as the “effective vacation” of this rule.
Following this development, Paxton promptly filed a notice to dismiss the case.
He remarked that the Biden-Harris administration attempted to “coerce healthcare providers into violating state law” regarding minors and contraception without parental oversight.
This case has its roots in the Nixon-era Title X program, which guarantees individuals, regardless of age or immigration status, confidential access to contraception.
Historically, Title X regulations have prohibited requiring parental consent for minors wanting birth control.
However, a Texas father named Alexander Deanda initiated the case, arguing that the lack of parental consent violated his rights under the state constitution.
Deanda’s case was taken up by attorney Jonathan Mitchell, and it eventually reached Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee.
In a ruling earlier this year, Kacsmaryk agreed with Deanda, stating that Title X providers in Texas should require parental consent prior to prescribing minors any birth control.
This decision was confirmed by the 5th Circuit in March 2023.
In response to these developments, the Biden administration issued a new rule in 2021, clarifying that Title X providers could not mandate parental consent for minors seeking family planning services.
Yet, Texas challenged this latest rule, with Paxton asserting that it contradicted the 5th Circuit’s previous judgment.
The situation took another turn when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated it wouldn’t enforce the confidentiality clause in Texas if it conflicted with the state’s laws.
They also pointed out that Texas had not actually suffered any harm, hence had no standing to continue with the lawsuit.
Leave a Reply