Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
.-') _ .-') _
( OO ) ) ( OO ) )
.-----. ,--./ ,--,' ,--./ ,--,'
' .--./ | \ | |\ | \ | |\
| |('-. | \| | )| \| | )
/_) |OO )| . |/ | . |/
|| |`-'| | |\ | | |\ |
(_' '--'\ | | \ | | | \ |
`-----' `--' `--' `--' `--'
lite.cnn.com - on gopher - inofficial
ARTICLE VIEW:
Supreme Court declines to hear case challenging parental consent for
abortion
By John Fritze, CNN
Updated:
10:46 AM EDT, Thu July 3, 2025
Source: CNN
The Supreme Court declined Thursday to review a Montana law that
requires people under 18 to seek parental consent before obtaining an
abortion, leaving in place a state court ruling that struck the law
down.
Montana’s law, enacted in 2013, prohibits a doctor from providing an
abortion to a patient under 18 without notarized written consent from a
parent.
The state’s highest court had concluded that the law violated the
Montana state constitution, which includes broader protections for
abortion than the US Constitution.
The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning, but conservative
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wrote a short statement
asserting that technical problems with the case made it a “poor
vehicle” for deciding the questions over such laws and that it was
“especially important” that the denial not be read as a
“rejection of the argument” the appeal raised.
“Parents’ authority extends to decisions about medical care,”
Montana officials told the Supreme Court in their appeal, filed in
January. “Because parents are presumed to act in their child’s best
interest, the state may not ‘inject itself into the private realm of
the family [and] question the ability of that parent to make the best
decisions concerning the rearing of [their] children’ unless it has a
reason to believe the parent is unfit.”
Planned Parenthood, which sued over the law, argued that the case is
primarily about the state constitution.
Montana officials “seem to suggest that the existence of parental
rights is the beginning and end of the inquiry – that so long as
there is a federal due process right of parents to participate in
decisions concerning their minor child’s medical care, there is no
need to consider what other rights might be in play,” lawyers for
Planned Parenthood said.
Under Montana’s law, which never went into effect, a doctor
performing an abortion without parental consent would face both fines
and imprisonment.
The law requires physicians to obtain notarized consent from a parent
or guardian for anyone under 18. The law also allows a minor to
“bypass” the requirement by convincing a court they are mature and
well informed enough to make the decision on their own.
The Supreme Court dealt with a similar issue in the 1970s, a few years
after it issued its decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. In Planned
Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, a majority of the court
struck down similar consent requirements, relying in part on the
constitutional right to abortion established by Roe. In a 1979 case,
the court struck down a Massachusetts law because it did not include a
path for a patient under 18 to “bypass” the parental consent
requirement through a court.
Montana has argued in part that the Supreme Court’s decision
strengthened its justification for the law, partly because state courts
found a similar right to abortion in Montana’s constitution that Roe
found in the US Constitution. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
Organization, the Supreme Court said that Roe’s reasoning was
“egregiously wrong.”
The state supreme court’s ruling “flouted … longstanding
principles” of parental rights, Montana argued in its appeal to the
US Supreme Court, holding “that parents’ federal fundamental rights
do not include the right to know about and participate in their minor
child’s important medical decisions – at least not with the
child’s decision whether to get an abortion.”
In its decision, the state court concluded that “minors, like adults,
have a fundamental right to privacy, which includes procreative
autonomy and making medical decisions affecting his or her bodily
integrity and health in partnership with a chosen health care provider
free from governmental interest.”
<- back to index
You are viewing proxied material from codevoid.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.