de facto medical intervention.It is also entirely inconsistent with constitutional and legal precedent. As one of us notes in a recent AEI report, the Supreme Court has explained that "our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children." In another case the Court declared that the "primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition." Generally, government officials can't override or even "review such parental decisions." While the courts have recognized limited rights for minors that can supersede parental objections, the Supreme Court has also stated that "the constitutional rights of children cannot be equated with those of adults," due to children's "inability to make critical decisions in an informed, mature manner" and the "importance of the parental role in child rearing." Thus, "Parental notice and consent are qualifications that typically may be imposed...on a minor's right to make important decisions."The dramatic shift away from this traditional moral and constitutional precedent has nothing to do with a dispassionate or scientific analysis of the human good.