TALLAHASSEE - The Florida Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out a state law that requires a teenager's parents to be notified before the girl has an abortion, adhering to its long-standing position that Florida's Constitution guarantees a right to privacy.

The 5-1 opinion, authored by senior -- and now retired -- Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw, said forcing teens to tell their parents that they plan to seek an abortion ``imposes a direct and significant intrusion on a pregnant minor's right of privacy.''

The court, Shaw said, was bound by a unique provision in Florida's Constitution, added by voters in 1980, that gives citizens the ``right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion.''

Shaw added that the court also was bound by his 1989 landmark opinion that a teenage girl does not need parental consent for abortion.

''We recognize that the legal issue of abortion has been one of the most gut-wrenching, emotionally laden issues of past decades in Florida,'' Shaw wrote. 'We do not question the strength or sincerity of the parties' convictions. Sitting as a Court, however, we cannot be ruled by emotion.''

Abortion foes and Gov. Jeb Bush, who signed the 1999 measure into law and has often been at odds with the high court, decried the decision.

'The court said that the limited rights of privacy that underage Floridians have are more important than the rights of parents to have some say in their childrens' lives,'' Bush said, proclaiming himself ''really disappointed'' with the ruling. ``Put aside all the legal stuff, it is just hard to imagine we live in a society where parents wouldn't be notified of an abortion.''

The opinion reflected a court in conflict over the issue: Shaw was joined by Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead and Justices Peggy Quince and Barbara Pariente, each of whom wrote their own opinions. Justice Fred Lewis agreed to strike down the law, but disagreed with Shaw's thinking and wrote his own opinion. Justice Charles Wells disagreed, calling his fellow justices' thinking ``illogical.''

All told, the decision took 137 pages.

Abortion rights advocates nationwide hailed the ruling as precedent-setting. The 1999 law has never been enforced -- snagged by legal challenges since Bush signed it.

''Today's landmark decision by the Florida Supreme Court is a great victory not only for the young women of this state, but all of its citizens who care about their right to make personal decisions about their reproductive health and lives,'' said Bebe Anderson, a staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which had argued the case for abortion clinics and providers.

COURT CHANGED

The case was argued in March 2002 and decided by justices on the court at the time. Since then, two Bush appointees have made the court more conservative. Shaw, one of the more liberal justices, retired in November and is now a senior judge who can be called in to hear occasional cases as part of the court.

Shaw was replaced by Pensacola trial Judge Kenneth Bell, who once wrote courts ``must recognize they are the weakest branch of government.''

Bush's other appointee, former Miami attorney Raoul Cantero, has also drawn controversy: A devout Catholic, Cantero once wrote a letter to The Herald after the murder of a Pensacola abortion doctor, saying the gunman was ''thoroughly confused about Christ's doctrine,'' but noting that ``abortions kill children.''

Bush said he hadn't yet decided whether to pursue a new parental-notification law again. ''Maybe we could go back to the Legislature with another bill,'' Bush said. ``We haven't gotten into the details on that yet.''

House Speaker Johnnie Byrd said the Legislature had believed it was acting in defense of families when it passed the law.

''This just goes to show our Supreme Court is more activist than we had even feared,'' he said.

Wells took offense at his fellow justices' reasoning, arguing in a dissent that there was ''no basis'' for the court to second-guess legislators who wanted to protect minor children and ``foster family unity.''

Wells noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld parental notice laws in other states, declaring it less intrusive than requiring permission.

''It is simply logical to me that the community, acting through the State, has an exceedingly compelling interest in having parents parent their children,'' Wells wrote. ``It is illogical to me, if the State has such a compelling interest in parental responsibility, to conclude that there is not a compelling interest in notifying the parent when the child is in a crisis situation.''

PARENTS' RIGHTS

But his fellow justices were quick to suggest that their decision will not interfere with parents' rights.

''Just the opposite,'' Shaw wrote. ``Under our decision, parent and minor are free to do as they wish in this regard, without government interference.''

''Few decisions are more private and properly protected from government intrusion than a woman's decision whether to continue her pregnancy, and yet the Act's notification requirement prohibits a pregnant minor from keeping this matter private,'' Shaw wrote, noting that state law would allow a minor to give a child up for adoption without parental notice.