What is the test for determining the constitutional validity of a law that restricts access to medical records of an unborn child?

Determining the constitutional validity of a law having such paradoxical and potentially serious effects is no easy task. Indeed, this case presents a confluence of state constitutional issues of great complexity and delicacy. We must adjudicate rights under the state constitutional right of privacy in the always thorny context of abortion, rendered all the more volatile and challenging because the rights at issue are those of adolescents rather than adults. And we must do so using a test newly established in Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633. Without question this is one of the most important

Page 224

Unfortunately, this court has not risen to the occasion. The majority ignores the distinction between rights and interests, hopelessly confusing these two distinct concepts and straying from the analysis mandated by Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., supra, 7 Cal.4th 1, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 865 P.2d 633. Where sensitive and penetrating analysis is called for, the majority relies instead on abstract categorical pronouncements about the inferior legal status of children. Disregarding the superior court's findings in this case, which are solidly grounded in the best scientific evidence available, the majority relies instead on assumptions grounded in nothing more than comfortable platitudes and folk wisdom.