H. L. v. Matheson

OF GOVERNOR MATHESON, UTAH, H. L. et al. Argued 79-5903. October 1980 Decided March

No. J., opinion Court, in which Stewart, delivered C. Burger, J., joined. filed a concur- JJ., Rehnquist, Powell, and Powell, White, post, J., filed ring joined, p. 413. opinion, J., in which Stevens, Stewart, p. J., filed opinion judgment, post, concurring in the 420. Marshall, post, JJ., joined, dissenting opinion, which Brennan Blackmun, p. 425. filed a for argued the cause and brief

David Dolowitz appellant. Tinker, Attorney Utah, ar

Paul M. Assistant General gued him brief was appellees. the cause for on the With Attorney Hansen, Robert B. General.* Burger of the Court. opinion delivered Chief Justice The a state question presented in this case is whether if requires “[njotify, possible,” statute which physician Abigail English of amici urging * Briefs curiae reversal were filed Tesler Rights Pauline H. for the of Women Coalition for the Medical al.; et Eve Pilpel Paul and Planned Parent W. Harriet F. for Inc., hood Federation of America, et al. Horan, Gorby, Rosenblum,

Dennis J. Patrick Victor O. John D. Trueman, for A. and Dolores V. United Horan filed a brief Americans for urging Life as amicus curiae affirmance.

Lynn Asso- D. Wardle and Robert Barker W. filed Utah a brief amici ciation of Women et al. as curiae. dependent, girl unmarried minor prior to per-

forming on girl an abortion violates federal constitutional guarantees.

I spring appellant was an unmarried 15- year-old girl living dependent Utah and support. them for her She discovered she was pregnant. physician. She consulted with a social worker and a appellant advised that an abortion would be in her best medical interest. However, because of Utah Code Ann. 76-7-304 he (1978), perform § refused the abortion with- notifying appellant’s parents. out first 76-7-304,

Section enacted in 1974, provides: “To enable the to exercise his best medical judgment considering possible a abortion], [in he shall:

“(1) Consider all factors relevant to the well-being of the upon woman whom the abortion performed is be including, but not to, limited

“(a) Her physical, psychological emotional and health and safety,

“(b) Her age,

“(c) Her familial situation.

“(2) Notify, possible, guardian or if upon woman whom the abortion performed, to be is if she is a minor or the if woman, husband of the she is married.” (Emphasis supplied.)1 Whether of a minor expense are liable under Utah law for the of an abortion and related by aftercare is not disclosed the record. provides Utah also performed statute that no abortion un- “voluntary less a informed written consent” is first obtained attending physician patient. from the In order for such a consent to be

“voluntary informed,” patient must minimum be advised at a about adoption available services, development, about fetal and about fore- complications seeable and risks of an Code abortion. See Utah Ann. (1978). Planned §76-7-305 Parenthood Central Mo. v. punishable by- a misdemeanor this section

Violation year than one a fine of not more imprisonment $1,000.2 more than “for own reasons” she should

Appellant believed [her] notifying her parents. abortion without with proceed concurred the social worker in this appellant, According first trimester of her pregnancy, decision.3 While still Third this action District appellant instituted Judicial (2) § a declaration that sought Court of She 76-7-304 Utah.4 injunction prohibiting and an appellees, unconstitutional Attorney o'f Utah, the Governor and General from en forcing Appellant sought represent the statute. class a “minor consisting suffering of unmarried women who are pregnancies unwanted and desire to the pregnancies terminate may not do but so” because their physicians’ insistence (2). complying § 76-7-304 The trial judge declined to grant a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.5

The trial judge held hearing which appellant was witness. Appellant allegations affirmed the complaint by monosyllabic giving attorney’s answers to (1976), rejected we attack constitutional on written provisions. consent 2 Utah Code (3), Ann. (1), 76-3-204 76-3-301 §§76-7-314 3 Appellant’s counsel stated jurisdictional again in his statement his brief concluded would not that an abortion appellant’s interests, be best but also would notification not be in best argument, However, interests. counsel at oral corrected this sup statement and conceded that there is no evidence to port this assertion. Tr. Arg. Oral 17. 4 The record does not appellant proceeded reveal whether with abortion. judge The trial allowed appellant proceed appointment to without ad litem. guardian required He guardian noted that to be would notify parents. However, when State leading questions.6 attempted about her reasons for appellant wishing cross-examine not notify parents, appellant’s counsel vigorously ob- testimony was follows: [appellant’s “BY MR. DOLOWITZ counsel]:

“Q you Complaint signed, At the time that the in this matter was were pregnant?

“A Yes.

“Q pregnancy? You had a counselor about that consulted with “A Yeah.

“Q talking you had determined after You counselor that felt you get should an abortion?

“A Yes. “Q you notify your parents— You did felt that want to Right. “A

“Q your —of that decision? You did not feel for own reasons you could it with them? discuss Right.

“A “Q discussing counselor, you After the matter with a still believed that you your parents? should not discuss it with Right.

“A

“Q they And shouldn’t be notified? Right.

“A “Q talking counselor, con- After the matter with a the counselor over your your curred in decision not be notified? should Right. “A

“Q performed You were without advised that an abortion couldn’t notifying them?

“A Yes.

“Q filing You then came to me see a suit? about Right. “A

“Q do you right to You and I had a discussed it as to whether or not you what wanted do?

“A Yes.

“Q proceed with that, discussion, you You decided should still after our notifying your parents ? try the action to without obtain an abortion Right. “A

“Q Now, Complaint spoke with you signed at the time that preg- spoke you in the first trimester me, the counselor and were nancy, your pregnancy? within first twelve weeks of specifics really “the the reasons are insisting that

jected,7 issue.” consti- irrelevant the Constitutional performance permissible tutionally prerequisites girl he the desire medi- insisted, were and the abortion, “A Yes.

“Q that, talking feel thinking You from to the counselor and the situa- discussing you tion me, over and it with that could make the decision on your you that pregnancy? own wished abort

“A Yes.

“Q living are You at home?

“A Yes. “Q you felt, though living your You still even par- were at home with ents, you that couldn’t the matter with them? discuss

“A Right.”

Tr. 5-7. McCarthy “BY MR. for the [counsel State]: “Q you . Are living . . still home?

“A Yes.

“Q you dependent your parents? Are

“A Yes.

“Q your money All comes from them?

“A Yes.

“Q you old How are now?

“A Fifteen. “Q Aside from abortion, you the issue any do have reason feel you your can’t talk problems? about other

“A Yes.

“Q are What those reasons? “MR. you moving DOLOWITZ: Now problem are area that into I . . .” indicated. Id., at 8. 8Id., Appellant despite at 10. trial repeatedly point pressed this court’s statements it where a child could “conceive of a situation probably “might parents” wouldn’t have tell the the statute but particular [unconstitutional relates situation to a fact Id., as it relates to 17. [constitutional another fact situation.” post, There is no dissent, evidence to support in the the “surmise” n. “appellant expects the abortion family over conflict decision.” sustained the judge The trial physician.9 approval

cal of a ap- to require tentatively the statute construing objection, to “if he is able notify to physician pellant’s them.” contact physically of findings fact and judge entered the trial

Thereafter, ap- an appellant “is He concluded of law. conclusions purports she the class representative represent propriate require notice the statute to He construed represent.” con- possible.” He physically “if it is appellant’s parents unconstitutionally re- (2) § 76-7-304 cluded “do[es] an right privacy of to obtain the of a strict relationship.”11 Accord- doctor-patient enter or to into complaint. ingly, he dismissed Supreme unanimously upheld of appeal, the Court Utah

On (1979). Relying P. 2d on our deci- the statute. Central sions in Planned Parenthood Mo. Danforth, of International, Carey (1976), Population U. S. 52 Services Baird, (1977), S. 678 Bellotti v. and S.U. (Bellotti (1979) the court II), concluded that the statute “significant serves state present are interest[s]” respect minors but absent in the case adult women. court

The looked first § subsection 76-7-304. court provision, observed, incorporates This expressly Bolton, factors we identified in (1973), Doe v. 410 U. S. 179 pertinent to exercise of physician’s judgment best medical making an abortion In Doe, decision. we stated: agree “We with the District . medi- Court . . that the judgment cal may be light exercised of all factors— physical, emotional, psychological, the wom- familial, and 9 Tr. 18. 10The trial judge adopted, verbatim, findings of fact conclusions prepared by appellant. law findings, conclusions, opinion of the Supreme State Court make no mention whatsoever of precise limits of the class. 11The trial judge also ruled that the statute C. does not violate 42 U. S. 1983. § well-being age to the the patient. art’s All —relevant to health. these factors relate This allows the at- room he tending needs make his best Id., 192 (emphasis judgment.” supplied). medical (1) of the Utah statute suggests Section 76-7-304 language to reflect the Doe. legislature sought held that Supreme The Utah Court notifying seeking “substantially of minor abortion is logically in § related” to the Doe factors set out 76-7-304 (1) because parents ordinarily possess information essential physi- a judgment exercise of best medical concerning cian’s his child. 2d, at 909-910. The court P. also concluded that an encouraging unmarried to seek the advice making carry her in the decision of whether her promotes significant child term a state in support- interest ing important Id., role of child-rearing. 912. The court reasoned that since the statute allows no power veto over the minor’s decision, it not unduly does upon intrude rights. minor’s Supreme

The Utah rejected Court also appellant’s argu- ment that phrase “if possible” in 76-7-304 (2) § should be to give construed physician discretion whether to notify appellant’s parents. The court concluded that required is to notify parents “if under the circumstances, the exercise of reasonable diligence, he can ascertain their identity and location and it is or give feasible practicable to added, them notification.” The court “the however, that time element is an important for factor, there must be sufficient expedition to provide an opportunity effective for abor- an tion.” 604 P. 2d, at 913.

II Appellant challenges the statute as unconstitutional its face. She it contends is overbroad in it can be construed that to apply all unmarried minor girls, including those who are mature and emancipated. We not question need reach that either any evidence that proffer or allege not since she did emancipated.12 or mature any class is she or member of unmarried, “is fifteen appellant that found trial court par- of her dependent is home and years of resides at age, finding for insufficient basis affords ents.” That Under emancipated. Harris she either mature “the she therefore lacks McRae, S. (1980), standing” confer controversy needed to personal stake argument. overbreadth to advance the for strong applying reasons estab- are particularly

There Dis- case. The United States standing rules in this lished 76-7-304 does § trict Court Utah has held applied, so it would emancipated that, if apply to minors Hansen, No. L. R. v. Civil C-80-0078J be unconstitutional. from rul- (Feb. appeal was no 8, 1980). Since there assume controlling on the State. We cannot ing, challenged be con- proper case, in a will not statute, when minors.13 See exempt demonstrably also to mature strued I). Baird, (1976) (Bellotti Bellotti v. any minor in need Nor is there reason assume that a from emergency any way treatment be treated in different will II, by contrast, In Bellotti principal of “unmarried the class consisted give adequate capacity to Massachusetts who have [pregnant] minors a valid and consent abortion], not wish to involve and who do [to informed parents.” their The con (emphasis supplied). U. at courts rights the the might sidered of “all minors affected” who be Id., 627, statute. n. 5. 13The unsuccessfully record shows that the trial argued in the State permitted inquire court that degree should be into maturity. Tr. 11.

Justice Stevens and Supreme the argue dissent Court the Utah held may validly applied statute class to all members Post, complaint. However, described in 421, as 430, 431, 432-433. shown, we have neither of the scope state courts mentioned the or limits supra. 10, class. See n. Moreover, appellant’s prepared counsel findings and standing, conclusions. we addition to considerations ambiguity construe the against appellant. Supreme Court has Utah The similarly adult.14

a situated of the statute application to consider no had occasion I, unanimously we supra, In Bellotti to such situations. challenges on constitutional to pass declined “susceptible of was the statute because statute regulation might ‘which avoid in judiciary by the state construction adju federal constitutional necessity for or part whole change materially nature of the prob least dication, or at '" NAACP, S. Harrison U. Id., 147, quoting lem. Mexico, New Kleppe v. (1969). See A, v. TV 297 U. S. 346-347 (1976); Ashwander approach (concurring opinion). We reaffirm appellant challenges here find it insofar controlling and statutory emancipated of mature exclusion purported minors. constitutionality us, is the then, issue before facial requiring give parents, notice to a statute possible," prior performing

“if an abortion their girl living daughter, (a) dependent upon when the with and (b) by marriage her when or parents, emancipated she otherwise, (c) when she or showing made no claim has maturity as to her toas her parents. relations with

Ill A Appellant right contends statute privacy violates recognized in our prior cases respect with to abortions. She 14There is authority no expressed for the view in the dissent that apply statute would to "minors emergency Post, health care needs.” at 450-451. Appellant does contend, not so Supreme the Utah Court pains in this case took say is of time the essence in an abortion decision. 604 P. 2d 907, specific question When the was properly posed in II, Bellotti by Massachusetts statute construed was the state court not apply in such S., cases. 443 at U. 630. The same is true for minors with hostile situations, home a class re- by ferred to amici curiae dissent, post, and at 437-441. II, S., 655. on Bellotti reliance places primary imposed that statutes down state we struck patient’s spouse of the consent prior of written for prerequisite an abor- parents as patient’s and of a state held that a tion. We .give constitutional authority

“does have arbitrary, veto over possibly party absolute, third an patient to terminate his decision reason for with- patient’s regardless pregnancy, consent.” 428 U. 74. holding holding “that our . . . does not emphasized, however, We regardless every age maturity, suggest minor, give pregnancy.” effective consent termination her Id., I, citing supra. logical Bellotti There is no rela- tionship capacity between the to become and the capacity judgment concerning for mature wisdom of an abortion. II,

In Bellotti dealing concededly with a mature class pregnant minors, we struck down a Massachusetts statute parental or requiring judicial before an abortion could consent be performed any unmarried minor. There the State’s court highest had construed the statute to allow a court overrule the minor’s decision if found even the court capable minor was an making, made, and in fact had informed and reasonable We decision to have an abortion. held, other things, the statute was unconstitu- among tional for failure to undergo allow mature minors decide without abortions consent. concluded Four Justices the flaws in the statute were that, as construed state court, (a) it permitted overruling minor’s of a mature decision to abort pregnancy; “it (b) requires consultation or every notification in afford- instance, without ing the pregnant minor an inde- opportunity to receive pendent judicial determination enough that she mature

409 would be in her an abortion best consent interests.” Four other S., 443 at 651. Justices U. concluded that de- the abortion decision making in of a minor subject fect was party, parent third whether or judge, to veto “no matter capable of informed how mature and decisionmaking” Id., might at 653-656. be. Although we held that may have a state not constitution- ally legislate power blanket, unreviewable to veto daughter’s abortion,15 setting their statute out a “mere re- notice” quirement parental does not violate the constitu- rights immature, dependent tional of an minor.16 Four Jus- II joined tices Bellotti in in stating: . suggest . . that the mere

“[Plaintiffs] [unduly burdens right to seek an II As stated Part above, however, parental abortion]. notice and consent qualifications are typically imposed be by the State on right a minor’s im- make portant decisions. As immature minors often lack the ability to fully make informed account choices that take of both immediate long-range consequences, a State reasonably may determine that consultation often is desirable and the best interest of minor. It may further general determine, proposition, as a such consultation is particularly respect desirable with the abortion decision—one that for some people raises profound moral religious . concerns. . . “ ‘There can be little doubt State furthers a constitutionally permissible end un- encouraging an married pregnant minor to seek the help and advice of II, Bellotti S., 653-656; 642-643, U. 74. II, Bellotti supra, 640, 649; id., (dissenting opinion); at 657 Danforth, supra, at 90-91 (concurring Baird, see Bellotti opinion); (Bellotti U. S. I); Carey Population Services cf. International, U. S. important decision making very grave decision, child. That is a whether or not to bear a stress, may under emotional years, and a of tender girl advice emo- it without mature ill-equipped make unlikely that will support. tional It she obtain seems from the adequate support attending physi- and counsel for clinic, cian at an abortion where abortions ” Id., (foot- at 640-641 frequently place.’ minors take (con- physician. provide Parents can medical and psycholog ical to data, physician refer other sources of medical his family such tory, physicians, family physi authorize give cians to relevant data.

17 premise main requirement The of the dissent seems to be that equivalent notice to the is the functional of a parental post, II, however, consent. See at 437-441. In Bellotti we ex pressly equate requirements requirements. declined to notice consent 640, 443 at 657. 18 II, supra, Bellotti given by The 637-639. short shrift dissent “parental to authority family post, contrary integrity,” 447, runs long to a line of supra, in constitutional cases cited Court. See cases at 410. 19 II, supra, Bellotti at 634-637. 20Abortion is associated complication with an in sub increased risk of sequent pregnancies. Maine, Pregnancies?, Does Abortion Later Affect Family Planning (1979). Perspectives psychological The emotional and pregnancy effects experience markedly and abortion more severe are girls in under Psycho 18 than in Kurtz, Bar-Din, adults. Wallerstein, & Sequelae Therapeutic social Young Women, in Abortion Unmarried Psychiatry (1972); Goldman, Arch. Gen. see Study also Babikian A & Teen-Age Pregnancy, in Psychiatry (1971). 128 Am. J. Appellant declare, failure intimates statute’s of what information terms, description a detailed mandatory pe- for may provide physicians, provide or to renders delay parents,21 riod of notifies the after the notion the statute The the statute unconstitutional. no by parents finds supplied must itemize to be information And as or our decisions. support logic, experience, time 2d, 913, Supreme recognized, Utah Court P. decision. likely to be of the essence minors in protect reasonably calculated Utah statute con- potential enhancing class traumatic potentially concerning sultation a decision that has permanent consequences.22 constitutionality of the Appellant contends also pregnant is undermined statute because Utah allows a procedures consent other medical without formal to her parents if she carries the child to term.23 But a sufficiently interests in dif- pregnancies state’s full-term are to justify ferent the line drawn Maher v. statutes. Cf. Roe, 432 girl U. S. If the carry elects to be child to the medical decisions term, made perhaps grave entail potentially none —of the few— 21At least five States con have statutes enacted notification taining mandatory brief waiting periods. See Stat. Ann. La. Rev. §40:- (West Supp. 1981) (24 1299.35.5 con 72 hours’ hours’ actual notice or except structive notice abortions); for court-authorized Laws Mass. Gen. Ann., (West Ann., ch. 12S Supp. 1981) (24 hours); § Rev. Stat. Me. (24 Tit. hours); (Supp. § N. D. Cent. Code 14-02.1-03 § 1979) (24 hours); (two days). Tenn. 1979) Code (Supp. Ann. §39-302 particular Members of the no class now us in this case have before right notify constitutional to notifying parents. a court in lieu of their II, Bellotti supra, See at require 647. This case us to decide does not in what circumstances provide state must alternatives notification. 23See Utah Code (4) (f) any (permitting Ann. 78-14-5 female § give any informed consent prohibited by “to health care not . . . law in connection with pregnancy childbirth”). her consequences of the psychological

emotional decision abort. notice to inhibit some

That not seeking is a valid basis to from abortions void minors appellant and applied properly the class the statute as compel does not a state to fine- us. The Constitution before encourage or facilitate abortions. tune its statutes so as childbirth contrary, except state action To the “encouraging “rationally circumstances” is related to the urgent in the most objective of protecting potential legitimate governmental McRae, 448 at Accord, v. U. 325. Maher life.” Harris S., Roe, supra, v. at 473-474.24 properly us, before applied to the class the statute

As plainly important interests, narrowly state drawn to serves protect interests, any guar- those and does violate judgment Supreme antees of the Constitution.25 The Court of Utah

Affirmed. Justice joins, with whom Justice Stewart Powell, concurring.

I This requires again case the Court to consider the divisive questions encourage raised state intended to statute II, I, also Bellotti S., See Bellotti 643-644; S., 428 U. at 148-149; Menillo, Connecticut 79-81; 65-67, City 9, Services, (1975); 423 U. S. West Side Women’s Inc. Cleveland, Supp. (ND Ohio), order, F. 2d 582 F. affirmance (CA6), denied, cert. 439 U. S. 983 25Appellant argues right the statute to secure neces violates sary physician treatment from a who, his best medical in the exercise of judgment, does not believe the there is be notified. Since should no evidence that reach opinion, had such an decline to we question. supra, See n. and 405-407. opinion The dissenting purports opinion “a clear see in the Court’s signal” as concerning to how the Court this or will decide a case future statute, goes a similar challenge on to forecast a successful decision of a minor to in the involvement parental Central Mo. Planned Parenthood See have an abortion. Baird, Bellotti v. S. (1976); S. 52 Danforth, 428 U. I with the that Utah (Bellotti II). agree Court (1979) unconstitutionally does not (2) (1978) 76-7-304 Code § Ann. I right join opin- to an abortion.

burden this it open understanding ion of the Court on the leaves unconstitutionally bur- (2) 76-7-304 question § whether minor or minor whose best inter- of a mature a right dens ante, notification. See be served

ests would I I to make clear that continue to enter- 412, n. 22. write my opinion on stated in in Bel- question tain the views this 8, II. See n. lotti infra.

II “[njotify, if Section 76-7-304 requires that guardian upon or of the woman whom possible, is to Appel- if she is a minor.” performed, ground lant attacks this notice on the right burdens a minor or is emancipated, who who enough mature independently make the abortion decision or involvement, whose will react obstruc- tively upon ante, notice. See question, at 405. The threshold opinion as the notes, Court’s stand- appellant whether has ing make such challenge. initially depends Standing complaint what alleges, Warth v. 422 U. S. Seldin, (1975), “only courts have to redress or power otherwise to protect against injury complaining party.” to the Today, merits. course, ques- the Court’s function is to decide properly presented tion case, to intimate and there is no occasion predict proper Speak- view as to the resolution of case. some future ing for the unanimous Kleppe Mexico, 426 U. S. 529 Court v. New (1976), Justice Marshall deciding took note con- impropriety questions stitutional “in adequate the absence of full-bodied ‘an ” Id., Rickover, record.’ Associates, Public quoting Inc. v. Affairs Ill, quoted Section 76-7-304 is Ante, opinion. full in the at 400. Court’s carefully in this case was drawn.

Id., complaint at 499. her herself and familial situa- allegations about Appellant’s alleged she did “not She that wish laconic. are few and tion her condition and believe that parents [d] to inform her parents not be that her informed of interest in her best [was] alleged 6. She also that Complaint she ¶ her condition.” decision,” in her is involved ¶ “what understood consulted had told her that “he could not she physician inform- upon an abortion her without perform not and would her.” 7. aborting to parents prior her ing ¶ age and lived at home with her years Appellant was She did not claim to complaint. when she filed her parents with to her allegations respect and made no mature, be they not relationship parents. her She did aver that or notified, any be obstructive if advance other reason would to be in her best why parents her would not interest. complaint no Similarly, allegation phy- contains apparently willing perform the abortion— sician—while con- notifying her would have adverse believed In sequences. nothing in the record shows that fact, any appellant’s parents had or information about situation, appellant. familial even that he had examined

A This case not allegations does come to us on the complaint alone. An occurred after the evidentiary hearing trial court preliminary ha'd denied appellant’s motion for injunction. Appellant her testi- only witness, was the mony beyond by her counsel—make clear statements —and any question that com- the “bare bones” averments jthat plaint were deliberate, appellant arguing mere notice' se without per regard is invalid age, minor’s her emancipated, whether whether she is likely are there some or whether obstructive, health or other reason not be in the why would notification minor’s best interests. merely verified the examination, appellant

On direct alle- allegation by affirming para- each as gations complaint her phrased in a series of lawyer leading questions.2 for her testimony nothing Her on cross-examination added to the lawyer complaint.3 appellant's insistently ob- addition, jected counsel for the State questions all appellant's wishing notify reasons for her parents.4 court, unsuccessfully The trial pressed its own initiative, to elicit reasons, inquiring some how it could “find out the validity [appellant’s] without lawyer] reasons State’s [the being permitted to cross-examine Tr. Appellant’s her/’ 9. lawyer replied:

“It position is our [constitutionally that she has the right to make decision and if she has [the abortion] consulted with a counselor and the counselor concurs that reasons, those are valid then— why

“In terms of going beyond complaint allegations], [the our point is specifics that the really of the reasons are Id., irrelevant issue.” [Constitutional at 9-10 (emphasis supplied). 2Appellant’s testimony quoted direct examination is full opinion. Court’s Ante, 402-403, at n. 6. 3Appellant’s testimony on quoted cross-examination is in full in opinion. Court’s Ante, n. 7. 4 After his direct examination appellant cross- and the State’s brief examination, appellant’s lawyer subsequent repeatedly during insisted argument that “there is no relevancy any 17; facts,” that other Tr. particular “the facts that come doctor], before a are irrele [minor’s vant,” id., 18; specific and that any case, no facts of individual “[t]he matter how they ridiculous they really are strong are, or how or weak become irrelevant,” lawyer ibid. appellant’s In summarizing position, his stated: position “Our is that relationship it is the that doctor/patient key. If the doctor determines go patient, he should ahead with then he specific should. The any facts in case, whether doctor] [the

wrong right, are [constitutionally protected make decision that go ahead and act why say on it. This is I it is Ibid. irrelevant.” with respect that facts lawyer insisted

When irrelevant, trial court sus minor were particular to this validity of the statute.5 tained opinion appellant emphasizes, as Court’s sum, and abortion, more than she desires an that nothing that

alleges which she declined reveal— she decided—for reasons has not to her notify parents, best interest it is in willing perform the abortion if would be Although court required. the trial did not notice were not clear bald standing, allegations rule it is that these in terms (2) § 76-7-304 standing do not to claim unconsti- confer either of a tutionally right burdens the mature or of a be minor whose best interests would not served They standing confer to claim that notification.6 76-§ upon is an unconstitutional burden an un.eman.ci- evidentiary hearing, appellant’s lawyer At the end of the framed the ruling trial court’s follows: your ruling possible’

“If is that ‘if “physi- used in the statute means [as cally possible”] and justify there are no circumstances whatever statute, Id., violation of the then the issue is closed.” 19. action, might Because this case is a presumed class that other question members could raise the whether a minor has a right abortion, parental notice, showing without upon a that she is mature or that her will interfere But the rec with her abortion. ord in support this case contains no presumption facts to that the class includes such members. only complaint allegations about the class are appellant’s that typical claims of “are of the claims all members of class,” suffering and that the class who are consists of “minor women pregnancies unwanted and to but pregnancies desire terminate the not do so upon inasmuch as physicians perform their an abortion will not them compliance without provisions (2).” with the 76-7-304 of Section Complaint 10. Thus, the supports only ¶ record that the conclusion entirely class consists minors who the identical claim assert appellant presents: right a constitutional to abortion without noti an fying parents, their and claiming without to or that notification be mature would not be in their best short, In members—like interest. the class appellant an right themselves, absolute to make in this decision —assert dependently everyone except physician. abortion without minor who an notifi- pated desires explain anyone her not to to reasons cation but also desires or for not wanting the abortion to wanting notify either for parents.7 her

B I with case, agree the facts of this On Court that 76-§ appellant’s is not an unconstitutional burden on right to Numerous significant an abortion. interests compete a minor decides when whether or not abort her

7The trial findings court entered of fact and conclusions of law after evidentiary hearing. Paragraph 7 findings of the trial court’s reads: plaintiff “The consulted with a counselor to assist deciding her in whether or pregnancy. not she should terminate her determined, She after counselor, consultation with her that she abortion, should secure an but was consulting physician provisions advised when her under of Sec- (2), tion 76-7-304 Utah Annotated, along Code that he believed her with that she should be aborted and that he felt it was her best medical interest to do so but perform he could not and would an upon her informing parents prior aborting abortion without her her required because was him unwilling that statute and he was perform upon an abortion her complying provisions without with the the statute though even he believed it was best to so.” Civil No. do (Dec. 26, 1978). C-78-2719

Precisely what this paragraph ambiguous. least, finds is At the it finds appellant physician “consulted” physician agreed with and that the appellant that an appellant’s abortion would be in interest. best medical portion The final finding unwilling perform abor- was an —“he upon tion her without complying provisions with even of the statute though he believed it was best to to find that the do so”—could be read physician agreed also appellant “perform with an that “it was best” upon abortion her requiring complying provisiofn]” without with the parental notice. Or, portion the final that the find could read to physician perform would not complying without though statute even he appellant’s believed that “it was best” to abort pregnancy. light of testimony, allegations limited legal argument of lawyer, finding be read the trial court’s cannot saying appellant’s parents determined that would hostilely react obstructively appellant's notice of abortion decision. may right to make that decision not

pregnancy. The be un- Wade, constitutionally burdened. Roe v. 410 U. S. 113, Danforth, (1973); Parenthood Central Mo. v. Planned S., the minor addition, U. at 74-75. has an interest abort, effectuating her decision to if that is the decision she Id., 75; makes. at 647. The State, Bellotti U. II, from encouraging aside the interest it has in childbirth rather Roe, abortion, than cf. Maher v. 432 U. S. 464 (1977); Harris McRae, (1980), S. has an interest in fostering such making consultation as will assist the minor in her deci- sion as possible. wisely as Planned Central Parenthood of supra, J., Mo. at 91 concurring); (Stewart, post, at 422-423 concurring in J., judgment). (Stevens, may State also family have an interest in the in- itself, the many through pass stitution which inculcate “we down of our most values, cherished Moore moral cultural.” Cleveland, v. East Parents have a in, traditional and substantial interest re- as well as a sponsibility for, rearing espe- and welfare of their children, cially during years. immature supra, Bellotti at 637-639. II,

None of these interests Even an absolute. adult right woman’s an abortion is unqualified. Roe v. Wade, supra, at 154. Particularly when a minor becomes pregnant and abortion, considers the relevant circum stances vary widely upon maturity, depending age, physical mental and condition, stability of her home if she is not emancipated, her relationship parents, with her like. If we to accept were § 76-7-304 claim that per se an invalid right burden asserted minor to make the abortion decision, the circumstances which normally are relevant im would—as her counsel insisted —be Supra, material. at 417. The Court to decide would have that the minor’s wishes are virtually our absolute. To be sure, cases have emphasized the necessity physician. consult a But we have never held with respect to opin- a minor an desirability of need as to the or single ion physician of a interests.8 parental state all outweighs abortion require notice to validly may not a State sum, independent decisionmaker an providing in without cases, all if she believes recourse have can whom a decision make the abortion enough to is mature she otherwise would notification independently II, joined by in Bellotti My opinion be in her best interests. why length the reasons some stated at Justices, other

three II, supra, Bellotti 642- such decisionmaker is needed. to the decision relevant abortion

648.9 The circumstances substantially that absolute rules— vary so a minor can and do notice in cases or none10—would requiring parental all for no inflexibility often would allow considera- create rights above. cases tion of the and interests identified Our gone extreme, my to this view should have never not. concurring judgment. in the Stevens, Justice out, the Court is a class in which points As this action “ appellant represents all ‘minor women who are unmarried pregnancies and desire to terminate suffering unwanted physicians’ but their pregnancies may not do so’ because of complying (2)” insistence on of the § with 76-7-304 Utah judgment physician While medical of a is to be re of course spected, there general is no reason to proposition believe as a that even the most physician’s conscientious interest the overall welfare of a equated minor can be parents. Moreover, with that of most clinics, readily now may operated available in communities, most urban be on a commercial basis where often “on de abortions be obtained See Planned Parenthood mand.” Central Mo. 428 U. S. 52, 91-92, 2 (1976) II, (Stewart, n. Bellotti J., concurring); 641, n. 21. 9Although II Bellotti consent, involved requiring a statute plurality rationale of opinion respect appli with to this need is cable here. dissenting opinion of Marshall, Justice hold the which would statute face, Utah invalid on its elevates the decision minor and to an ignoring absolute status state and interests. Ante, Supreme 401. The Utah

Code. Court held that may validly applied to all statute members of that squarely appeal presents question class. This therefore holding whether that the Constitution of consistent however, Court, United States. The declines to reach question decides the question pre- and instead narrower appellant's particular sented factual situation. Be- duty I cause believe we have a to answer broader ques- the I Court, tion am Supreme join decided the Utah unable to opinion the of the Court. Danforth, Planned Parenthood Central Mo. v. of

U. S. the (1976), Court held that a minor’s right to make the decision an may to obtain not be on My conditioned consent. from dissent that hold- id., ing, my does 102-105, qualify duty respect not it as part Baird, a of our law. See Bellotti v. 652- U. S. 656 (1979) (Stevens, J., However, in concurring judgment). I Bellotti, in noted neither that ease nor “deter- Danforth mines constitutionality the a more of statute which no does than require notice to the parents, affording them or without party other any third absolute veto.” 443 U.

n. 1. Since outcome in the is case not controlled Danforth, principles I dispositive considered parental consent issue in that plainly case dictate Utah statute now upheld. before us be

The fact that a state may impact upon statute have some a minor’s exercise of his rights ends, or her begins, rather than the constitutional inquiry. impact Once the statute’s identified, must be evaluated in light of the interests state underlying the statute. The state the Utah interest statute at issue this case attempts essentially to advance is the same state interest considered in I noted As Danforth. that interest is fundamental substantial:

“The State’s interest in the of young welfare its citizens justifies variety of protective he measures. Because decision, minor of his consequences foresee the not bargain. He may not enforceable may not make an he or even pleases, attend or travel where lawfully work constitutionally motion protected adult exhibitions marry may not age a certain Persons below pictures. Indeed, such consent consent. es-

without already woman is young pregnant. even when sential protecting young person from The State’s interest on imposition restraints his or justifies harm though comparable restraints adults freedom even constitutionally impermissible. Therefore, would (1973)] Wade holding in Roe v. [410 entitled to constitutional protection abortion decision is merely emphasizes importance it does decision; conclusion that legislature lead the state has no to enact power legislation purpose protect- ing a young pregnant woman from the consequences an incorrect decision.

“The is, abortion decision of course, important more than the decision to attend or to avoid an adult motion picture, or the factory. decision to long work in a hours It not necessarily any is important more than the de- cision to run away from home or the decision to marry.

But even if it is the important most kind of a decision young person a may make, ever assumption merely that quality enhances the of the State’s interest in maximizing the probability that the decision be made correctly and with full understanding of the consequences of either alternative.” 428 U. atS., 102-103. my

In opinion, special importance of young a woman’s abortion decision, emphasized by Justice Marshall in dis- post, sent, at 435-436, provides special justification a for rea- sonable state efforts intended to ensure that the decision be wisely made. Such reasonable may efforts surely include a that an abortion procured be only after consul- “the physician. And,

tation with a because most licensed decision are not significant consequences [abortion] medical the State character,” unques- ensuring young that re- tionably has an interest woman ceive other consultation as well. appropriate my opinion, quality plainly interest sufficient to support that legislature’s such appropriate state determination that con- parental sultation include should advice.

Of that the Utah course, conclusion statute is invalid not prevent young pregnant voluntarily would women from parents prior advice of their seeking making the abor- But tion decision. the State legitimately decide that probable such consultation should be made more by ensuring daughter’s are informed of their decision: parental-[notice] “If many there is no requirement, minors will to the procedure submit without informing parents. ever their An assumption that will hostile, reaction or disparaging, violent many no doubt persuades children simply bypass which counsel would loving, sup in fact be portive, and, indeed, indispensable. some It unreal istic, my judgment, every parent-child to assume that relationship is either so (a) perfect that communi cation and place routinely accord will take (b) so imperfect absence communication reflects the childJs prediction correct parent . . will . arbitrarily to further [act] a selfish interest rather than the child’s interest. A state legislature may conclude that most will be primarily interested in the wel fare of their children,[1] and further, imposition 1 My conclusion, in this case legislature and in that a state may rationally decide parents that most will, of their when informed daughter’s pregnancy, act with her welfare in mind is with consistent “pages experience of human that parents generally teach in that do act the child’s best interests” R., upon relied by Parham J. in Court appropriate an parental-[notice] aof to foster opportunity parents giving method child distressed pregnant a helping welfare that Id., 103- decision.” correct implement and make J.). (Stevens, not dimin- statute is parental-notice its in interest Utah’s mean- guarantee no that can there that by the fact ished occur. Good- actually will consultation ingful parent-child tend requirements would the statute’s with compliance faith parents daughters and between communication to facilitate some possibility that The decision. the abortion regarding understanding compassion and not will react parents predicament that, or daughter’s of their being informed upon they incorrectly her, will advise they receptive, are even if attempt of the State’s legitimacy does undercut probability enhance the will procedure establish wisely possible as young woman exercise right to make the abortion decision. that certain members of the of unmarried fact class suffering pregnancies

“minor unwanted women who are may actually be eman- pregnancies” desire to terminate the cipated sufficiently mature to make a well-reasoned abor- Bren- with Justice It also consistent Parham, Id., nan’s opinion joined. in I which at 625-639. Parham, in presumption

As Court noted act the best may “experience interests of their children be rebutted Id., reality.” my nothing that a opinion, at 602-603. in the fact minor child pregnant, has become be confronted with and therefore decision, general validity presumption. undercuts However, when custody their child to a decide surrender hospital thereby family relationship, mental destroy ongoing very being authority decision raises an exer- inference that is not (Brennan, id., J., cised in the best dis- child’s interests. See at 631-632 senting part). Accordingly, and the commit- while the abortion decision ment comparable gravity, “pages decision are upon the’ reliance experience” is, my human former judgment, appropriate more in the case than in the latter. validity undercut my view, in not, does

tion decision legislature state Danforth, a I in stated As the Utah statute. implement- utilize, purposes power has constitutional upon the yardstick based a ing parental-notice requirement, a That women. pregnant of unmarried chronological age cases unjust particular in or even yardstick imprecise will be impermissible legislature state by its use a does not render Ac- 104-105. atS., Constitution. under the Federal by Court reserved question I cordingly, reach would constitu- is statute parental-notice the Utah and hold that certified class.2 of the all members tionally applied valid as is that in this as my case, view Because from woman young pregnant a protecting interest State’s sufficient is abortion decision of an consequences incorrect I agree requirement, parental-notice justify be affirmed. Supreme Court should of the Utah decision and Jus- Marshall, with whom Justice Brennan Justice dissenting. join, tice Blackmun It finds shortcom- narrow.

The decision Court relief. denies ings appellant’s complaint and therefore carefully more Thus, signal the Court sends out a clear pleadings plaintiff’s standing drafted could both a secure statute unwillingness the Utah Court’s to decide whether by courts constitutionally the state applied be to the entire class certified to the presumably assumption requiring notice rests on the ob from minor emancipated might prevent a mature or such ante, however, definition, taining an abortion. See at 406. Almost important deci intellectually emotionally capable making woman any ignoring capable of sions without assistance also should be the wisdom disapproval. Furthermore, every minor with if adult, uniform right a constitutional as an adult has treated gen enforcing simply voting age surely suspect. minimum Instead of should judiciary promulgated legislature, perhaps eral rules establishing status persons their grant" hearings young to all desirous of un confining privilege to minors emancipated instead of mature, young married women. Ann. 76-7-304 § Code of Utah overbreadth

challenge the merits.1 on the and success (1978), I if the com- that even believe I dissent.

Nonetheless, analysis is incorrect legal majority’s defective, the plaint is important, here. More disposition improper yields an it and complaint, of the or majority’s view the agree I with cannot judg- reverse the I therefore analysis. would standing its of Utah. Supreme Court ment of

I complaint defective because The Court finds emancipated, neglects mature or allege fails to that she is notifying par- to avoid her specify wishing to her reasons for result, As a the Court rea- ents about her abortion decision. majority's view, standing, plaintiff pregnant Under the to assure simply abortion, inability allege to need her desire to obtain an her statute, emancipated, do so she is because and her view that mature, performed or it is in her that best interests have an notifying parents. majority standing problem without her The finds no mature, complaint alleges plaintiff emancipated where that Baird, standing analysis employed and thus reaffirms in Bellotti v. (1979) (Bellotti II). addition, ante,

U. S. 622 406, 12. In See n. Utah, part in Court relies in on a decision Court the Federal District enjoined application which here of the same Utah statute involved 8, emancipated (Feb. Hansen, minors. L. C-80-0078J R. v. Civil No.

1980). challenges apparently The will contemplates Court that similar meet with Court example, success For the District future. preliminary L. R. v. Hansen also accorded intervenor and awarded status years relief to a who, appellant, minor woman like is under 17 old dependent upon parent difference The with whom she resides. allegations appellant between the those of inter- of the instant express allegation venor is the result latter’s notice would expulsion relationship in her from home and of her destruction parent. Hansen, (Findings R. of Fact and L. v. No. C-80-0078J Civil ¶4) (Oct., 1980). today Finally, does Conclusions Law Court question physicians prior upholding standing our decision challenge abortion restrictions. See n. infra. challenge standing appellant the overbreadth lacks

sons, statute.2 notification of the Utah prudential analysis standing con- majority’s rests The neglected appellant because essence, Court concludes situation, 'the she “lacks and her specific allegations about herself make standing’ controversy to confer to advance personal needed stake in the McRae, 448 ante, (quoting Harris at 406 argument,” the overbreadth raising plaintiff (1980)). majority thus assumes that The U. S. allege herself that she challenge to an abortion statute must overbreadth quotation Harris from reach. falls within the statute’s overbroad standing there the actually entirely different kind issue: refers to an they they allege were in plaintiffs standing because failed lacked they Medicaid, to receive and thus position either to seek abortions or challenge to necessary their to advance lacked the concrete adverseness funding. cited for this None of the cases the Medicaid limit on abortion Littleton, 414 O’Shea point apply appeal. Harris to the instant See allege standing (1974) (plaintiffs lack because of failure 488 U. S. Bailey Patterson, 31, (1962) (petitioners 32 specific injury); v. 369 U. S. Mississippi’s breach- standing enjoin prosecutions criminal under “lack prosecuted they they allege that have been of-peace statutes, since do not them”). prosecution threatened under challenges abortion statute standing overbreadth to an A limitation on hardly For while analogous context to the instant case. has roots standing to chal frequently that criminal defendants lack have ruled we within lenge indisputedly falls a statute’s overbreadth when their conduct Dairy g., Products legitimate core, United States National the statute’s e. v. 612 (1963); Harriss, U. Corp., 29 United States 347 S. 372 U. S. v. rulings (1954); States, (1951), v. United 341 S. 97 these Williams U. relationship of appellant’s challenge restriction bear little to a State’s right. Central her exercise of a fundamental Planned Parenthood See of 179 Bolton, 410 U. S. (1976); Mo. 428 U. S. 52 Doe v. v. (1973). relevant, analysis standing to claim believe, More I is our of those liberties, primarily statute’s overbreadth that a affects fundamental by of guaranteed the First exercise Amendment. Because of the risk that personal by permit freedoms facial regulation, chilled broad we challenges moving showing party’s overbreadth conduct without a that the Gooding protected (1972); Wilson, falls core. 518 within v. 405 U. S. Cincinnati, (1971); Robel, Coates 402 U. 389 v. S. 611 United States v. (1967); City 258 Shuttlesworth Birmingham, U. S. v. S. 147 394 U. of (1969); Secretary Louisiana, Aptheker Cox 379 (1965); v. U. S. 536 v. of 428 constitutional limitations set not Art.

cerns and Gladstone, Village Bellwood, Realtors v. III. See of 490, Seldin, (1979); v. Warth S. 498- 99-100 U. For the does (1975). question Court not that requirement injury due the statute’s falls privacy interest, of her protected

within the ambit legally remedy ante, would requested that the relief harm. See ante, (majority opinion); (opinion at 418-419 at 407-409 J.). appellant decides Court cannot Powell, challenge the blanket nature the statute she because ne- glected allege her personal characteristics, she is a undoubtedly member of particular groups that ex- deserve emption from a requirement.3 Thus, notice to apply seems prudential principle Court familiar an individual rights should not be heard to raise the of other course, persons. principle, This precluded has not stand- here, ing in other where, party instances has estab- the requisite legally protected lished capable interest State, York, (1964); Kunz New U. S. 340 U. S. 290 See also United Reese, States (facial challenge U. S. Amendment). under Fifteenth 1, swpra. n. See question The Court exceptions does from necessary emancipated are from minors custody infra, or control parents, of their n. see for minors able to maturity demonstrate their purpose choosing for the to have an abortion, ante, II, at 406-407. See also Bellotti (Powell, at 651 id., J.); J.). (Stevens, depart view, does Nor the Court from explicit made supra, II, in Bellotti 651, Justice opinion Powell’s at that a require State parental cannot notice when it be in the would not minor’s best interests to position today do so. This by Justice articulated anew Powell, ante, 420, at majority, acknowledges and bolstered the which the exception parental need for emergency where notification interferes with treatment, ante, 407, 14, medical at open possi n. and which leaves the bility of relief where showing the minor makes a “claim or . . her . ante, relations with her parents,” 407, or demonstrates a “hostile home ante, situatio[n],” 407, Hansen, L. R. n. 14. See also v. Civil No. (Utah, 8, 1980, C-80-0078J 1980). Feb. 24, and Oct.

429 Duke Power g., e. requested.4 relief the through See, redress Study Group, 59, 438 U. S. Environmental Co. v. Carolina 113-118 Wulff, S. Singleton v. 106, 428 U. (1978); 80-81 Bolton, Doe J.); v. Blackmun, opinion (plurality Connecticut, v. 381 Griswold (1973); 188-189 179, 410 U. S. Patterson, ex Alabama rel. NAACP 479, (1965); U. S. Jackson, S. Barrows (1958); S.U. (1953). bar should considerations prudential I that do not believe complaint I standing persuaded am here, be in would not notifying her claima establishes it is “believes alleged interests.5 She she her best [preg- of her be informed that her interest her best con- that after App. 4, and condition,” Complaint 6,¶ nant] “she worker, attorney, and social physician, her sulting with decision” to seek in her is involved understands what ¶ further 4.6 This claim was Complaint App. abortion, according especially noteworthy have not refrained from It is that we standing prosecution, physicians, personal threatened risk of any of their challenge asserting rights of abortion restrictions supra, g., patients. E. Mo. v. Planned Parenthood Central supra; 62; Bolton, Connecticut, Doe v. Griswold v. undue case, application rule causes prudential In the instant third-party here, commingling jurisdictional and merits issues. For to rebut play appellant interests do not even come into until wishes has only appellant interests, after State’s which themselves are asserted must appellant protected First, established a burden on her interests. privacy in right to satisfy that, merits, a court her fundamental by the Utah consulting burdened about an abortion is interests, Only countervailing then need the state statute. State assert its authority. family autonomy promoting which here include challenge appellant And in rebuttal would as overbroad next employed by regulates the abortion State, means for the ban absolute inter emancipated minors, best decision of and mature and others whose name of in the Thus, call for an abortion without notice. ests majority’s standing analysis its evaluation depends upon prudence, complicated merits. substantial professionals casts Appellant’s consultation with three detail, evidentiary supported, albeit without at the hearing. appellant There not testified she did feel she could discuss the parents decision with her even after she consulted 8, App. social worker on the issue. Tr. 26.7 In my judg- appellant adequately has asserted ment, that she persist- has ently held for believing reasons notice would not be in her provides interests. This best a sufficient basis for challenge to raise the in her standing complaint. Appellant challenge seeks to a state statute, definitively by construed highest the court of that State permit exception to no to the notice requirement any basis of the reasons offered minor. 1979). 604 P. 907, (Utah 2d As standing is a jurisdictional separate issue, and distinct from the merits, a court need persuasiveness not evaluate the of her reasons for opposing parental notice to conclude appellant has a concrete interest in determining whether

statute is valid.8 ante,

doubt on Justice suggestion, Powell’s see appellant at explain anyone “desires not to to wanting her reasons either abortion or wanting notify for not parents.” her portion ante, This of the transcript 402-403, is set out in full n. 403, n. 7. reports, ante, correctly Justice Powell 416-417, that the in-chambers

hearing elicited from appellant essentially statements identical to her complaint. And it is also appellant objected true that counsel for in- quiries by appellees judge regarding appellant’s the trial exact reasons wanting for not pregnancy talk with her about her other matters. neglects note, however, What Justice Powell is that objections counsel’s any ruling stemmed from the own trial court’s specific appellant's facts physi- situation to the would be irrelevant duty cian’s under notify statute to an abortion decision. judge Because the trial ruled that its sanctions would statute and apply regardless opposing personal minor’s reasons for parental notification, judge questions objections sustained about

appellant’s particular ruling 14r-20, App. It is this reasons. Tr. 31-36. legal judge’s is the below, basis for the the trial decision preliminary majority, ante, comments cited 8. n. 8 I also pinning challenging doubt the wisdom a minor’s success in is complaint view Court’s even if the

Yet denying standing calls prudence if correct, and even erroneously con- Court claim, the the overbreadth to raise the appellant by suffers represented class cludes that the doing, ap- the In Court is disability. so identical standing comity arising or issues the federalism parently indifferent procedural the deter- supervise this presumes when Court under state law. Even a state trial court by minations made ap- governing if class actions were application of law federal by misapplies federal propriate case, majority law by approved definition the trial court. disturbing class as ante, J.); The Court C. acknowledges, (Burger, ante, ap- the trial court granted n. 6 J.), (Powell, pellant’s represent undisputed motion to is class, this class “minor un- suffering includes all women who are wanted pregnancies pregnancies desire terminate the but do so inasmuch as their not physicians per- will form an upon them compliance without provisions of (2).” Complaint App. Section 76-7-304 ¶ 5. This class definition includes all self- women, or supporting sophisticated dependent, naive, long or as as the Utah statute interferes with ability of these women to decide with physicians their to obtain abortions. If is Court correct appellant challenges cannot raise based on the interest emancipated minors, or others mature whose best interests call for avoiding notification, proper disposition under federal law would be a remand. This remand protect would such members permitting class the trial court to determine appellant proper whether is a and adequate class whether her representative, claims are similar to sufficiently ac- class to warrant the class blanket particular to consideration of her by judges, opposed situation regularly others are more who involved II, counseling Cf. Bellotti of adolescents. at 655-656 (Stevens, J.). enjoys court Since the trial considerable tion.9 latitude in actions, appropriate class such a remand approving reviewing on those rare occasions where court discerns But where an abuse of discretion.10 abuse of discretion record, ensue, from the remand should clear and could re- sult in redefinition or dismissal of addition class, of other plaintiffs represent appellant named interests cannot ad- vance, or creation subclasses with representa- additional parties.11 contrast, improper tive it is appel- assume 9 Jacquelin, As the Court in Eisen v. 156, observed Carlisle & 417 U. S. (1974), procedure

176 the federal class action “was intended to insure judgment, not, the whether favorable or would bind all class mem request binding bers who did not exclusion from the The suit.” effect of disposition the poses process class serious due action’s concerns where the properly represented. Wright interests class members are not 7A C. & Miller, (1972). A. Federal Practice and Procedure 1765 § by impaired Where review of the claims asserted is an obvious lack homogenity approved by court, in the class the trial the court reviewing definition,” must remand “for reconsideration of the class Kremens v. 119, 431

Bartley, (1977), U. S. 134-135 and for a determination whether plaintiff proper the representative class, named is a Martin v. Thompson Co., (CA5 1973). Tractor 486 510, F. 2d 511 10 g., Bogus Speech Hearing Assn., E. v. American & 582 277 F. 2d (CA3 1978); Powell, Dellums v. App. 275, 184 S. 566 F. 2d U. D. C. (1977), denied, 167 (1978); cert. 438 916 Barnett Grant U. S. v. W. T. Co., (CA4 518 F. 2d 1975); 543 Board Ed. Arkansas Ed. Assn. v. Portland, Dist., (CA8 1971); Arkansas School 446 F. 2d 763 Gold Christensen, Stamp

Strike (CA10 1970). Co. v. 436 2d 791 F. It difficult to judge conclude that the in fact abused his trial below approving discretion in approved the similar class. Other courts have represented by Gary-Northwest classes g., plaintiffs, similar named e. (ND 1976)

Indiana Bowen, Supp. Women’s Services 421 734 Ind. F. (unmarried pregnant 16-year-old representative of un- proper class restriction), married minors sum- under 18 challenging abortion marily aff’d, class, (1977). moreover, 429 U. S. 1067 Conflict within unlikely, why any seems for “it imagine person is difficult in the class appellant represents challenged seeing would have an interest [the upheld.” Iowa, 393, 403, Sosna v. 13 statute] n.

11 A g., Oswald, class redefined, need to be e. Gesicki v. 336 F. entire defined represents by

lant class as adequately appellant rep- is deemed court, trial but redefine the class Nonetheless, deny on that basis.12 and relief resent, today. majority exactly by the course selected represents adequately I appellant instead assume that represents she judge class which trial concluded —all but seeking finding minor women an abortion I would find that their obstacle. then rights appellant sup- interests can be raised here statute, Utah port challenge of a facial to the conduct appropriate claims. review (SDNY Supp. 371, 1971) (three-judge court), subclasses, into divided g., Davidson, e. 1972) Francis Supp. (Md. (three-judge 340 F. adequately court), modified, protect members’ or otherwise its inter- generally Wright Miller, supra, (1972 ests. See & §§ 1980). Supp. assumes, ante, majority mistakenly it is free to n. approved by that court based rewrite the class the trial court because plaintiff. assumption its class definition submissions from the This runs whereby general practice counter to the in both federal courts state and seeking party proposes class definition which is certification a class subject challenge Newberg, opposing party. then Class See H. id., (1977); challenged Appellees the class Actions 1403. success, Supreme questioned trial and the the without State Court never approval appellant’s of court’s class. 12 ante, (opinion at 420-421 rea See of Stevens, J.). Powell Justice sons, ante, 417, 6, n. that the class members raise the overbreadth cannot they the record such claims. claims because fails to disclose that wish to raise view, through my quite contrary. members, In is the record to the The class unequivocally complaint the over- representative, their class raised the in challenge App. 6. This breadth the Utah Complaint 17, statute. ¶ claim, along allegations provided the other the con complaint, with in the judge representative. trial approved appellant the text in which as class the approving, obliged trial court so was ensure adequately protect members, allegations would the of the class interests by judgment. reviewing bound the court who would be If subse quently plaintiff, pro the claims that by alters can be asserted the named requires class interests the of tection for reconsideration remand plaintiff named adequacy representative. as class of 434

II I cursory, ap- so review Because the treatment is Court’s pellant’s precedents. to our claims due attention with

Our cases woman has a have established that to obtain fundamental to choose whether an abortion right Wade, or carry pregnancy to term. Roe v. 410 U. S. 113 Bolton, (1973).13 choice, Doe v. 179 Her (1973); 410 U. S. marry,14 procreate,15 like the decisions to deeply intimate and to use from unwarranted contraceptives,16 guarded right privacy:17 state intervention Grounded in by Process Amendment, the Due Clause of Fourteenth right in- privacy18 protects both “interest in woman’s dependence important of decisions” making certain kinds 13 Carey 678, Population International, See also v. Services 431 U. S. (1977); Connecticut, 684-685 Griswold v. 381 at 482-485. U. 14 Loving Virginia, Redhail, 374, (1978); Zablocki v. 434 U. S. v. 1, (1967). 12

388 U. S. 15 Williamson, (1942). Skinner v. ex Oklahoma rel. 316 U. See S. 535 Cleveland Board Fleur, also Education La 414 v. U. S. 632 16 Baird, v. (1972); Eisenstadt 405 S. v. Con 438, U. 453 Griswold necticut, supra; Carey Population supra; Poe International, v. Services [filman, 497, J., dissenting) (ban v. (1961) (Harlan, S. contraception unjustifiable privacy is “intolerable and invasion life”). personal conduct of the most intimate concerns of individual’s Botsford, also Union R. Co. See v. 141 U. S. Pacific (“No right held sacred, carefully the com guarded, more or is more law, right every possession than the control mon to the individual person, others, of his own unless free from all or interference of restraint unquestionable authority law”). clear and right has right often been termed See “the let alone.” States, (1928) (Brandéis, J., Olmstead v. United dis 277 U. S. (quoted senting) Stanley Georgia, approval (1969), Defining Baird, 453-454, 10). supra, Eisenstadt v. n. spheres government within which sufficient not act without justification, privacy totality the con notion of from the “emanates Ullman, supra, stitutional scheme under Poe which we live.” (Douglas, J., dissenting). avoiding personal disclosure of

and her “individual interest Roe, 429 U. matters.” Whalen v. (1977). context, have held that right In the abortion we in, from undue state intrusion privacy the woman shields in Roe scrutiny personal her choice. of, very Thus, external Wade, supra, v. we during at held that first trimester of State’s interest protecting maternal pregnancy, fetus health or the life of the could potential override the and the right attending physician woman through private, make the abortion decision unfettered con- of emphasized scope sultation. We further restricted Bolton, in Doe v. permissible action in this when, state area supra, state-imposed struck down 198-200, procedural we subjected requirements private the woman’s decision other physicians to review and a hos- pital committee. right

It also privacy, settled that many like constitutional right minors. Planned Parenthood extends s19 rights being “Constitutional do not mature magically and come into age majority. Minors, when one attains the state-defined of as well adults, protected are possess Constitution and constitutional rights. See, g., Jones, (1975); e. Breed Lopez, v. U. S. Goss v. (1975); U. S. 565 Dist., Tinker v. Des Moines School 393 U. S. 503 (1969); Gault, (1967). re indeed, however, long 387 U. S. 1 The Court recognized has authority regulate State has somewhat broader Massachusetts, activities of children than of v. adults. Prince S., 170; Ginsberg York, (1968).” v. New 390 U. S. 629 Planned Parenthood Central Mo. at 74-75. See also Brown v. Board Education, (children 347 U. S. en- equal

titled to protection schools). privacy right not-necessarily does guarantee “every minor, re- gardless age maturity, may give for termination of effective consent her pregnancy.” Danforth, supra, Planned Parenthood Central Mo. Utah, however, assigns 75. authority woman consent any age pregnancy-related who seeks care, Utah Code Ann. medical (4)(f) (1977), subject require- §78-14r-5 to the consent State’s informed ments, see Utah Code (1978); Ann. This §76-7-305 §78-14-5 436 v. (1976); 52 Bellotti 428 S. Danforth, U. v. Central Mo. J.); II) (1979) (Bellotti 622, 639 (Powell,

Baird, 443 S.U. Jones, Supp. 873, H.T. v. 425 F. J.); id., at 653 (Stevens, grounds, 425 summarily on other aff’d (Utah 1975), 881 unwanted is pregnancy because an (1976). 986 U. S. Indeed, adult, an as for a minor than for a crisis more of probably her postponed majority, be until cannot the abortion decision minor the denying right in which few situations “there are consequences have so decision will important make an II, 646 supra, Bellotti at indelible.” grave and (Powell, woman, the minor both the adult and state- J.).20 for Thus, justified decision on the abortion can imposed burdens “important only upon showing that the restrictions advance Wade, S., 154; accord, Roe state interests.” v. supra, Central Mo. v. Planned Parenthood of state interests asserted here, 61. Before examining necessary consider claim its statute does first to Utah’s “imping[e] on a decision an abortion” woman’s to have path effectuating obstacles in the a deci “plac[e] such for Appellees requires Brief 9. This examination sion.” the parental whether notice of the Utah stat imposes any ute burden on the abortion decision.

The ideal of a supportive family pervades so our culture that it may incongruous seem imposed examine “burdens” by a statute requiring parental daughter’s of minor notice appeal present require does not the broad issue of when a State parental consent for a surgical procedure 907, child, 604 P. 2d on a 910, 1979). (Utah 5n. At scope issue here of the minor’s privacy constitutional right statutory in the face of a requirement. 20In striking down a prohibition against family planning related Utah minors assistance for absent consent, rea a Federal District Court “financial, soned psychological problems arising from and social teenage pregnancy and argue right motherhood recognition for our privacy equal Jones, of minors being T. H. v. that of adults.” (Utah Supp. 873, 425 F. 881 1975), summarily grounds, aif’d on other U. S. 986 long pregnancy.21 decision to This Court has terminate family join which deferred to bonds members mutual Society Sisters, v. S. sustenance. See Pierce U. Anderson, May (1953) ; (1925); U. Illinois, Connecticut, 486; Stanley Griswold v. Cleveland, Moore v. (1972); 405 U. S. East (1977) (plurality opinion S. 494, J.). U. of Powell, adversity, relationships in of the Especially times within a family security offer of constant caring can the and aid. See id., Ideally, important at 505. a minor facing decision naturally support will from seek advice and her parents, respond in they turn will comfort If the and wisdom.22 in pregnant minor her herself confides she plainly family, relinquishes right to her avoid them. For telling involving statutory minor in circumstance, the requirement of hardly parental imposes notice burden.

Realistically, however, many families do not conform to Many minors, this ideal. oppose like appellant, parental notice and preserve seek instead to personal the fundamental, privacy. It right these minors that requirement notification a problem. context, creates In this involving the minor’s against effectively her wishes23 her cancels right avoid of personal disclosure her choice. Roe, See Whalen Moreover, v. 599-600. absolute notice requirement publicizes private her consulta 21Appellees argue also contemplate is difficult to a relation “[i]t ship right privacy where the of formulated the abortion context could be less family.” relevant than in the confines of the nuclear Brief for Appellees view, 22. This however, expressly rejected was Planned Par enthood Central Mo. v. supra, at 75. of ideal, Realization of however, depend quality must on the emotional attachments within family, patterns legal and not on im posed by Quilloin the State. Walcott, (1978); See v. 434 U. S. Cleveland, Moore v. East S.,U. at 506. 23Nothing prevents encouraging from the minor to consult parents; only her .strenuously objects who remain bur will dened requirement. notice interjects parties in the additional with her doctor tion Wade, supra, Roe held confidential conference very decision, revealing confidential 164. Besides to the effec may limit “access means requirement notice Carey Population Services Inter that decision.” tuating (1977). Many minor women national, from their after the state- interference will encounter disappoint In to parental addition imposed notification.24 appellant’s The here contains little about situation because the record any facial judge such evidence as irrelevant to the chal trial excluded requirement. mandatory light her lenge to notice claim that the right abortion, of her choose an inhibits the exercise however, family appellant expects conflict over the we surmise that evidentiary hearing, Indeed, transcript decision. 402-403, 6, 403, Burger, J.), ante, quoted demon (opinion n. n. C. worker, physician, and her strates that consultation with her social her lawyer discuss did not alter steadfast belief that she could not parents. the issue with interference in other cases are also instructive as to the records privacy right.

posed parents some exercise of some minor’s See Hansen, (prelimi- R. (Utah, 24, 1980) L. Oct. v. Civil No. C-80-0078J nary alleging parent expelled home minor relief awarded to from Com- Women’s pregnancy abortion); of see sister who disclosed facts munity Cohen, Center, (Me. 1979) Health Inc. v. 542, Supp. 477 548 F. great causing (expert pressure minor, affidavits that some “will Baird family relationship”); disrupting emotional distress and otherwise Bellotti, (Mass. (uncontested Supp. 1978) v. 997, 450 F. 1001 evidence on of marriage, insist on or continuance some “would an undesired minor); Wynn pregnancy punishment” physically even or harm Carey, 1978) 1375, (CA7 prob- (suggesting F. 2d 24 same 1388, v. 582 n. Diane, In re lems); 629, (Del. 1974) (father op- 318 A. 2d 630 Ch. Koome, State v. poses religious grounds); 84 Wash. 2d minor’s abortion daughter 901, 908, 260, (1975) forcing (parent P. 265 thinks 530 2d Edwards, Margaret v. pregnancies). child deter her See bear will future 1980). may (ED oppose a Supp. 488 F. 181 La. also minor’s Parents g., Smith, E. In re 209, App. 16 295 A. 2d 238 decision not to abort. Md. (1972). generally Furstenberg, Unplanned Social See F. Parenthood: Jolly, Consequences Teenage Childbearing (1976); Young, Female, of 54 System: Law, Teenage in the Women Juvenile Justice and Outside (1979) (“When young girl pregnant, becomes Changing 97, 102 Values home”); Osofsky back many her into their & families refuse to allow

439 disapproval, may physical ment and the minor confront support, emotional of financial abuse, withdrawal or actual obstruction Furthermore, decision. threat may delay some minor notice cause women to past pregnancy, first trimester after which the health significantly.25 pregnant may risks increase Other minors at tempt illegal to self-abort or to obtain an abortion rather risk than notification.26 Still others foresake Osofsky, Teenage Psychosocial Pregnancy: Considerations, 21 Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 1161, (1978). Bedger, 1164—1165 See Teenage also J. Pregnancy (large majority sampled predict minors parental opposition abortions). their 25 Community Center, Women’s Health Cohen, supra, Inc. at 548 (affidavits showing parental “may delay cause an adolescent seeking increasing assistance with her pregnancy, the hazardousness of an one”); abortion should she choose Cates, Adolescent Abortions in the States, 18, United 1 J. Adolescent Health (1980); Care 24 Bracken & Kasl, Delay Seeking Induced A Abortion: Review and Theoretical Analysis, Gynecol. 121 (1975); Am. J. 1008, Hofmann, Obstet. Con Confidentiality Legal sent and Implications and Their Ethical Medicine, (J. Adolescent in Medical Care of the Adolescent Gal lagher, eds., 1976). F. Heald & D. Garell 3d ed. If she decides to abort after the first pregnancy, trimester of the minor Wade, health risks. Roe faces more serious (1973); U. S. Benditt, Family Second-Trimester States, Abortion Plan- United Perspectives ning (1979); Tyler, Cates, Schulz, & The Effect Crimes, Delay Family and Method Morbidity, Choice on the Risk Abortion Planning Perspectives child, If she decides to bear greater health risks are also than if she had a first trimester abortion. Cates, 1 supra, Care, Tietze, J. Adolescent Health 24; Cates & Standard- Mortality ized Rates Legal Associated with 1972- Abortion: United States Family Planning 10 Perspectives (1978) (abortion 109 within first pregnancy 16 of term); weeks carrying pregnancy safer than “The Applies Family Earlier Safer” Abortions, Planning Perspec- to all 10 Young tives 243 Zaekler, Bauer, See also The Andelman, & Ado- Risk, Gynecol. (1969) lescent as an Obstetric 103 J. 305 Am. Obstet. (complications by minors). associated with childbirth 26 Community Center, Women’s Health Cohen, supra, Inc. v. at 548 (affidavits may illegal that minor turn to rather than abortion have parents notified). Kahan, Baker, Freeman, See also & The Effect of 440 given child, which, an unwanted abortion and bear

an financial employment-skills, re education, “probable minor’s maturity, may exceptionally . be emotional . . sources and II, S., J.). 642 Bellotti 443 U. at (Powell, burdensome.” may problems particu occur such not possibility that hardship created the notice does alter the lar cases not hardship And that is not a mere on face.27 requirement its an State,28 but is instead actual created disincentive Morbidity Abortion, Legalized Resulting 121 Abortion on from Criminal (1975) (illegal Gynecol. drops 114 when abortion rate Am. J. Obstet. herself, legal available). The minor also seek abort 1044, Department Welfare, App. 1039, 3d Alice v. Social 55 Cal. 128 of Rptr. Legal 374, (1976); Holder, in Pediatrics and Cal. A. Issues Teicher, (1977); suicide, commit see A Adolescent Medicine 285 or even Suicide, Living: Attempted Solution the Chronic Problem of Adolescent 1973) Psychiatry 129, (J. in Current ed. Issues Adolescent Schoolar at (study showing approximately one-fourth of female minors who tempt they they pregnant). do so are suicide because are believe presence merely not its im requirement, It of notice plementation particular case, in a signifies intrusion. Cf. Planned Central Parenthood Mo. S. 52 v. U. (availability unconstitutional). veto, veto, not exercise of found Despite objection today past “expressly we in the Court’s have equate ante, requirements requirements,” declined to with consent rejected judicial at authorizing n. in Bellotti II the Court a statute review of a minor’s abortion con- decision—as alternative precisely parent might inter- because a notified the court action sent — Thus, fere. Justice Powell wrote for four of the Court: “[A]s Members obstruct, recognized, the District Court ‘there are who would perhaps altogether prevent, right go . There minor’s to court.’ . . is no majority reason believe in the cases would so many parents where consent is strong withheld. But views hold subject abortion, young living pregnant minors, especially those home, particularly are vulnerable parents’ to their both efforts to obstruct an abortion and their S., access to court.” at 647. 28 Thus, the notice produces only predictable disincen abort, tives to McRae, choose to Harris 448 U. at 338 (Marshall, “ id., J., dissenting); J., dissenting); ‘direct (Brenkan, but also ” protected activity,’ id., (quoting interference state with a approval Roe, (1977)). Maher

441 state-imposed obstacle to the exercise of minor woman’s pregnant represented free choice.29 For the class of minors by appellant, this obstacle is so onerous as to bar the desired Significantly, by abortions.30 the interference sanctioned operate statute does in a neutral fashion. No notice required pregnancy-related only for other medical care,31so the minor women who wish to abort encounter the burden by imposed the notification statute. Because the Utah re mandatory quirement unquestionably of notice bur privacy right, proper analysis dens the minor’s turns next proffered justifications infringements State’s for the posed by the statute.

Ill by As established this Court in Planned Parenthood Cen- of tral Mo. v. the statute cannot survive challenge justified “significant unless it is state inter- 32 est.” Further, the must State demonstrate that the means

29 Bolton, See Doe v. (1973) 410 U. S. 179 (invalidating procedural availability Carey restrictions on abortions); Population of v. Services International, S., 431 U. at (partial restrictions access to con traceptives subject to challenge). constitutional Regardless personal of the views each of us hold, privacy right definition secures latitude choice for the approval without state decision one Thus, over another. improperly reasoning Justice inverts the Stevens our decisions when he previous importance reiterates his view that the “ points the abortion decision maximizing to a ‘State’s interest probability correctly that the decision be made and' with full understand ” ing consequences alternative,’ ante, (emphasis either added). accompanying See text supra. 20, 24, 25, n. and see nn. permits pregnant Utah any procedure minors medical to consent connection pregnancy requires childbirth, but (f) before an Compare (4) abortion. Utah Code 78-14r-5 Ann. § (2) (1978). with §76-7-304 S., 428 U. at 75. Redhail, S., 388; Cf. Zablocki NAACP Button, Wade, 371 U. S. In Roe v. Court con cluded that privacy right may tempered by “important the woman’s interests,” ultimately applied but the Court [state] Where interest.33 tailored serve closely are it selected we have held pregnant of rights adults, the burden regulations “protec- with may concerned be legitimately that the State life.” Roe standards, prenatal and medical health, tion however, that concluded, We at 155. S., Wade, v. inter- none these pregnancy trimester during first the the decision interference sufficiently justifies state ests Id., physician. woman and by pregnant the reached paren- the Nonetheless, assert here appellees 162-163. state interests not additional advances requirement notice tal Specifi- decision to abort. by a adult’s implicated pregnant requirement notice im- contend that the appellees cally, pregnant physician’s judgment medical about a proves the ways: parents provide it permits two ad- in physician, encourages to the and information it ditional Ap- the minor parents between woman. consultation independent state preserv- interest pellees also advance family I autonomy. consider ing rights each of these asserted interests turn.34

A In upholding the con statute, Supreme Utah Court cluded provision encourage pa notification might rental might transmission which information, “additional “compelling commonly reviewing state interest” used in state burdens test rights. Id., on fundamental Although may at 155. seem it privacy right minor’s somehow less because fundamental “significant overcome is that interest,” state view more sensible inapplicable state interests may justify burdening to adults the minor’s right. Planned Parenthood Danforth, supra, Central at 74-75. Mo. g.,E. Roe Wade, supra, 155; Connecticut, Griswold v. 485. 34Appellees argue also legitimate the furthers enforcing statutory state interests in rape, against Utah’s criminal laws fornication, adultery, Appellees Brief inter incest. 28-30. These below, seriously ests were not asserted and are too tenuous considered to be here.

prove exercising physician invaluable to the his ‘best medi ”35 judgment.’ cal Yet neither the Utah nor courts statute kind of information specifies contemplated itself why for this nor it is available to the purpose, but Most the minor woman herself. lack the necessary supplement medical expertise physician’s provide medical best could judgment, and at facts about the patient’s history. It doubtful medical seems that a minor mature to become and to enough seek medical advice her own initiative would be unable or unwilling to provide her physician with information crucial to the abortion decision. addition, already law is obli gated to necessary obtain all information to form his best nothing medical judgment,36 and bars consultation with the parents should physician the find it necessary. 2d, P. at 909-910. (1) requires Section 76-7-304 physician

“Consider well-being all factors upon relevant to of the woman whom the performed abortion is to be including, to, but not limited “(a) physical, Her psychological emotional and safety, health and “(b) age, Her

“(c) Her familial situation.” Violations of this punishable by year’s imprisonment are $1,000 fine. Utah Code (1), (3), Ann. 76-3-301 76-7- §§76-3-204 (3) (1978). Criminal apply neglects also physician sanctions if the obtain the consent, minor’s informed written and such consent can be only secured physician after the patient: has notified the

“(a) Of the names and agencies addresses of two adoption licensed the state of Utah and the performed by agen- services that can be those cies, nonagency adoption may legally be arranged; and “(b) Of the details development pro- of unborn children and abortion cedures, including any risks, complications, foreseeable and the nature post-operative recuperation period; and

“(c) anyOf other factors he voluntary deems relevant to a and informed consent.” Utah Code (2) (1978). Ann. §76-7-305 malpractice

The risk of acquire physician suits also ensures that the will whatever information he necessary finds performing before the abortion. See Utah Code Ann. §78-14^5

Moreover, physician by is State, recognized licensed “[i]f he a substantial notice serves mandatory parental Even if to imple fails statute regard, the Utah purpose state in this require does not face the statute on its Simply ment it. put, information; it does not encourage or even transfer physician and between the call for a conversation even would A parents. letter from telephone call made satisfy the a brief statute, as would Moreover, abortion.37 statute moments before the patently if its aim is the transfer informa underinclusive from tion known to the but unavailable the minor statute excludes specifically woman herself. The married requirement; only minors from the planned abortion, husband need be told Utah Code (2) (1978), § Ann. 76-7-304 makes no claim that Utah any physician’s possesses judg he information to the valuable ment but unavailable from the pregnant woman. Further more, no required notice is for other pregnancy-related care sought by the See (f) minor. Utah Code Ann. (4) § 78-14-5 (authorizing any woman to consent to age preg nancy-related care). medical The minor woman con surgical sent to removal and analysis fluid, of amniotic cae delivery, sarian and other medical pregnancy. care related to physician’s decisions concerning procedures such would enhanced information much as would decision, yet the abortion triggers the decision requirement. This is especially result anom given alous the comparatively lesser health risks associated with abortion as contrasted with pregnancy-related other medical care.38 the Thus, statute only promote not fails to capable the State as of exercising acceptable judgment. clinical If he fails this, professional in censure and deprivation of his license are available remedies.” Doe v. Bolton, S.,U. at 199. parties The conceded as much argument. Arg. oral Tr. of Oral 18-19, 29, 48. am 38 I baffled majority’s the today pregnant statement the “[i]f girl carry elects to her child to term, medical decisions to be made not claimed, apply does as is of information transfer which such of in exchange contexts closely other related goal promot of important. be no less formation would and the of the between the ing consultation ill-fitted a statute so sustain minor cannot pregnant to serve it.39

B the legitimate the statute serves pur- claim Appellees also con- by encouraging minor’s decision of pose improving parents. Ap- the minor woman and sultation between legally cannot dispute that State do not pellees potentially grave and and perhaps none —of the emotional entail few— abort,” consequences ante, 412-413. decision to psychological and Choosing diagnostic tests risks to mother participate involves both pregnant knowledge that burden woman with child, and also Prevention handicapped. Health, National Institutes child will be See 3 (R. Harris Embryonic, Fetal, Disease Brent & M. and Perinatal 347-352 1976); 59-81, in the of Modern Obstetrics Risks Practice eds. Aladjem 1975). surgery

(S. undergo save ed. The decision psychological con- certainly and child’s life carries as serious “emotional abort; sequences” for the adolescent as does the decision calculating instances, the minor confronts task of both giving to a child. risks, also birth medical but all the issues involved in her future id., adolescent, For an issues include See at 59-81. unwed these problems job opportunities, as the more immediate educational and well as entirely dependent finding support offspring financial and emotional for Court, post, County Superior on her. Michael M. v. Sonoma (Rehnqtjist, surgery to save J.) (plurality opinion). nn. When life, poses greater the child’s the emotional life risks to mother’s proportion. crisis ethical dimensions of the medical care decision assume experience course, minors, the and the pregnancy Of for fact of mere produce psychological upheaval. childbirth can but judgment regulations physician’s More flexible defer to the which g., E. provide emergencies proposed. been have notice in 4.2, 4.6, 4.8 Justice, Rights of Minors IJA-ABA Standards for Juvenile care; physician (minor pregnancy-related medical can consent to notify notify parent, and permission seek to obtain should minor’s seriously objection only inform “could parent over if failure to minor’s minor”). jeopardize the health appellees Nor do

practically such consultation.40 require to ultimately minor’s the fact the decision is contest re- through the notice Nonetheless, make.41 the State seeks quirement to contribute to give parents opportunity the minor woman’s abortion decision.

Ideally, of conversation would assist supportive facilitation pregnant undoubtedly minor difficult experi- an during against rationality ence. Again, however, when measured of simply the means Utah statute fails to ad- employed, the goal. imposes vance this asserted The statute no sufficiently be timely dis- permit any cussion pregnant between the minor parents. and the More- over, require claims us to examine the statute’s in purpose relation to parents who the are minor believes likely respond hostility with light, or opposition. plainly statute overbroad. Parental consultation hardly legitimate seems a state purpose where the minor’s pregnancy from incest, resulted a hostile or where abusive response assured, where the minor’s fears such response deter her from the abortion she desires. The absolute nature the statutory excep- requirement, permitted tion only if the parents are physically unavailable, violates the requirement regulations in this funda- mentally personal area carefully sig- tailored to serve a nificant state interest.42 “The to preserve need the consti- 2d, (“the 6 04 P. encouraging special State has a interest (but require) does not unmarried the advice to seek making important decision as or not to whether child”). bear a 41 Ibid, (notification per any impose statute “does not se restriction the minor as to her decision pregnancy”). to terminate her Cf. Utah (4) (f) Code Ann. (woman 78-14—5 any § age can consent any medical care generally Planned pregnancy). related to Parent See hood Central Mo. Danforth, (State may delegate authority absolute abortion). veto seeking of pregnant minor 42State-sponsored counseling services, family contrast, promote could dialogue and improve also the minor’s decisionmaking process. Appellant

447 of the unique nature right decision, tutional and the by minor, require a State to when made act with especially legislates sensitivity when foster particular II, Bellotti 443 S., in this matter.” at 642 U. involvement absolute J.). Because Utah’s (Powell, sensitivity, I cannot approve no such in demonstrates its private minor’s consultation the with the terference with of her during pregnancy. the trimester first

C in appellees paren- assert a state interest protecting Finally, authority family integrity.43 This of Court, course, tal role of recognized “primary the the has beyond of is now established upbringing their children debate Yoder, enduring as an American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Massachusetts, Prince v. (1972). See U. Nebraska, Meyer (1923). S. 158 S. 390 U. (1944); U. destiny Indeed, “those who nurture and direct his [the child] right, coupled high recognize duty, have with the him prepare obligations.” Society for Pierce additional Sisters, 268 S., Similarly, at 535. our decisions “have of respected private of family realm life which state Massachusetts, supra, cannot enter.” Prince v. 166. See Cleveland, also Moore v. East at 505. L., example, decision. supported

H. consulted with a who her counselor The significant facilitating role of counselors can be adjustment pregnancy. Smith, woman’s A to decisions related See Follow-Up Study Request Abortion, Orthopsy- Women Who Am. J. chiatry 574, (1973). interest, although below, This was not discussed the state courts subject appellees’ vigorous argument most before this Court. challenged Family” provision Against does fall within the “Offenses Code, ante, chapter J.), of the (opinion Burger, Utah Criminal C. provides which bigamy, also criminal 76- sanctions for Utah Code Ann. § 7-101, incest, 76-7-102, adultery, 76-7-103, fornication, 76-7-104, § § § and nonsupport children, and sale of to 76-7-203 §§76-7-201 to protect decisions been these has The critical thrust from intru- families unwarranted state privacy of individual these seek- appellees invoke decisions Ironically, sion.44 in the normal functioning state interference ing justify the State in fact family. Through requirement, its notice family leaving rather than private enters the realm of interactions chosen pattern family. unaltered the hardly likely motive, Whatever its state intervention parental authority parents resurrect themselves are In rejecting permitting pa- to a statute preserve.45 unable veto of the minor woman’s abortion decision in Planned rental Central Mo. v. Parenthood we it difficult to found conclude that

“providing a parent power with absolute overrule by determination, made and his minor patient, patient’s terminate the pregnancy will serve to strengthen family likely unit. Neither is it power such veto will enhance or parental authority con- trol where and the nonconsenting are so parent fundamentally very in conflict and the of the existence pregnancy already family has fractured the structure.” More recently, II, in Bellotti supra, at 638, Justice Powell observed guide efforts develop- the social and moral of young ment people are “in large part. beyond . the com- . petence impersonal political institutions.” 44Wynn Carey, 2d, 582 F. 1385-1386; Note, Right The Minor’s Privacy: Limitations on Carey, State Action after Danforth Colum. L. (1977). Rev. 45“The fact that the minor sought became an abortion contrary parents’ to the wishes parent indicates that control the whatever once had over the minor diminished, has entirely. evaporated if not And we believe that enforcing a single, albeit important, parental decision—at a time when the minor is near majority an instrument as status — blunt extremely state statute is unlikely parental to restore control.” Gerstein, Poe v. F. 2d (CA5 1975), summarily aff’d, U. S. 901 “merely statute that Utah’s however,

Appellees maintain, have to know of right which reserved safeguards a attempting children of 'their activities important through deception.” rights parental of the prevent denial way not does Casting purpose its 3. Appellees for Brief parental the threat au- For when statute. salvage but from the minor the State not from thority originates cannot rights sus- “reserved” invocation child, family life such into as that intrusion blanket state tain Such a result not runs statute. by the Utah mandated family which the of the State domain private to the counter traditionally with the limits breach; it also conflicts may not authority. authority Parental is never placed parental when its exer- legal protection been denied absolute, and has minor children. safety health threatens cise Massachusetts, Indeed, supra, at 169-170. g., E. Prince v. if tempered rights frequently legal protection Whatever for the child’s interest.46 by concern replaced deserves de authority importance elsewhere, its of a where the minor’s exercise legal minimis reinforcement right is burdened. fundamental whether case, is no to determine

To decide this there need their as- protection when parental legal never deserve rights 46 Massachusetts, parental Prince v. Thus, this held even in Court by by the rights protected limited State’s the First Amendment could be Yoder, Wisconsin prohibiting interest in child labor. See Prince). traditionally 205, exer (discussing 233-234 The State 'parens patriae take care protecting in who cannot cises a function those Ginsberg (1968). York, v. New 629, 641 of themselves. U. S. See 390 parens patriae protected applications children earliest Some of the Wellesley Wellesley, 2 g., E. against "objectionable” parents. Bli. their 124, 1828). generally 133-134, Eng. Rep. 1078, (H. 4 See N. S. 1082 L. the Kleinfeld, Among Infants, Balance of Power Their Parents and The State, Family 64, (1971). Every III, enacted Part 5 L. State has Q. parental Wilcox, Abuse legislation children from Child to defend abuse. (1976). Future, 21 Past, Present, and 72 Laws: J. Forensic Sciences I rights minor’s and interests.47 conflicts with the sertion be defended statute cannot as mere rein- conclude that this for rights, the statute existing reaches parental forcement rights. applies, limits of those The statute beyond legal the emancipated minors,48 without mature mi- exception, may which issue arise are too varied to support contexts in any Appellees R., general cite our recent decision in Parham rule. v. J. (1979), support their pre U. S. 584 claim should be competent in daughter’s sumed involved their minor de respects. inapposite First, That in decision this case several cision. hospital Parham was committed minor child in who to a mental incompetent presumed Id., was to make commitment himself. decision by J., concurring judgment). contrast, appellant in (Stewart, presumed competent statute is make the decision about whether to com plete pregnancy. Furthermore, Parham, or abort her in placed Court ultimately determinative, independent critical reliance on the review the by Here, experts. commitment physician’s independ decision medical judgment ent medical an abortion inwas best medical —that ultimate, require interest —not was was defeated Finally, emphasized concurring ment. as Justice Stewart in opinion his judgment Parham, “personal in minor has sub right” Id., 623-624, stantive . . . to decide on an n. 6. abortion. through legislature adopted Most States their or courts have principle may common-law that a minor become freed of disabilities that status —and at the paren same time his from their release obligations prior tal majority. acts, Certain actual date of his — themselves, may and of emancipation. See, g., occasion e. Cal. Civ. Code (West Ann. 62 1981) 1954 and Supp. (emancipation marriage or upon § entry Services); (eman in Armed 1979) Code (Supp. Utah 15-2-1 Ann. § cipation upon marriage); Crook v. 2d Crook, 296 P. 80 Ariz. (1956) (same). A partially emancipated become if he partially self-supporting, but still assistance. entitled to some Katz, See & Schroeder, Sidman, Coming of Emancipating Our Children — Legal Age America, Q. Fam. States L. Several permit emancipation statute obtaining specific purpose, such medical care without consent, g., e. Ann. 34.6 Cal. Civ. Code § (West Supp. 1981); any (1979) (woman Mont. Code Ann. 41-1-402 § age may pregnancy-related consent to care); Code Ann. medical Utah (4) (f) (1977) (same), 78-14-5 (1976) (minor 26-6-39.1 can consent § § medical treatment for disease); venereal Ann., Art. Rev. Civ. Stat. Tex. (Vernon 1976) (person 4447i years at least 13 old to medical consent

451 nors,49 emergency minors with health care needs,50 and all of whom, recognizes, long as Utah law have been entitled to by parental medical care unencumbered involvement. Most drug dependency). Pilpel, treatment for Rights See Minors’ to Medical Care, Albany (1972). provide 36 L. Rev. 462 Several States for emanci pation Ky. parent. g., becomes once the individual E. Rev. Stat. 214.- § (2) (1977). Utah, 185 minors who become are authorized to make all offspring. medical care decisions for their Utah Code 78- Ann. § (4) (1977). (a) generally Delaware, 14-5 Co., See Cohen v. L. & W. R. 450, 150 453-457, Misc. 667, (1934); 269 N. Y. L. R. Han sen, (Utah, 8, 1980) (self-supporting No. C-80-0078J Feb. minor seeking emancipated mature); Goldstein, abortion and Medical Care for the Child Supervention at Risk: On State Autonomy, Parental 86 Yale L. J. 645, (recommending objective case-by-case criteria to avoid emanicipation). determination of 49The permits “mature minor” doctrine a child to consent medical treatment if he capable of appreciating consequences. its nature and g., Hansen, supra E. (this L. R. v. capable mature minor “is of under standing her making condition and an informed decision which she has carefully done after considering the alternatives available to her and consulting persons prior whom she felt she should consult” decision); Lacey (g) (1976). Ark. Stat. Ann. See §82-363 Laird, 12, 166 Ohio St. (1956) (physician N. E. 2d 25 not liable for battery acting after Seibly, consent); with minor’s Smith v. 2d Wash. 16, 21-22, Hosp. 2d 719, (1967); P. & Younts v. St. Francis Nursing, Inc., School 300-301, Kan. 469 P. 2d Four Members of concept this Court embraced minor” the “mature striking down a requiring statute and consent to a minor’s abortion, regardless maturity. II, of her own 643- Bellotti and nn. and opinion 23. In Bellotti for four II, Justice Powell’s Members suggested Court consti- that a statute could withstand attack if permitted case-by-case judicial tutional or administrative determination of pregnant capacity minor’s an abortion decision to make with her independent parents. Ibid. Because this of her expressed view was in a involving case not statute, such a and because it expose would public rigors arduous and administrative judicial process, four other rejected ad- Members of this Court it as visory and at privacy 654^656, odds with the Id., interest stake. joined (SteveNS, J., JJ.). n. 4 BreNNAN, Marshall, Blackmun, Nonetheless, II, even under Justice in Bellotti reasoning Powell’s statutory ap- the restriction claim, own appellant’s to relevant by best evaluated her the minor’s where interests —as plies even trial found The Utah court abortion. for an physician —call along “believed her physician that fact he it in and that felt was her best be aborted she should not per- he could and would not to so but do medical interest informing without her parents her upon form an abortion required him it was of aborting her because prior to unwilling perform upon to an abortion he was statute and only case-by-case preclude Not does it is unconstitutional. instant statute minor, maturity prevents of the also individualized of the it consideration parental notice would be harmful to the determine whether review to minor. g., (1977); Ky. 214.185 Code Ann. 26- Stat. Utah E. Rev. § § Laws, 98, emergency for (1976); ch. 7. The need medi 31-8 1979 Utah § religious objections g., parents. the E. even overcome the cal care 128, (Com. Clark, Op. 86, 89-90, 185 E. 2d In 21 Ohio 2d re N. 658,

PI., County 1962); Sampson, re S. 2d In 65 Misc. 2d 317 N. Y. Lucas (1970); aff’d, (Family Ct.), App. 668, Div. 2d S. 2d 253 N. Y. (West 1981); Ann., 112, Supp. 12F Code ch. Miss. Mass. Gen. Laws. § (1972). Delay may, treating nonemergency 41-41-7 health needs Ann. § course, emergency, reason, found produce and for that this Court statutory illogical. provision emergency nonemergency not care for but Maricopa 261, Hospital County, U. S. Memorial emer apply minors with asserting the Utah statute would to not statute, needs, point anything in the gency health care the Court to fails to contrary. Supreme record, Utah law Court case be emergency: kind cannot Utah addressed one where physically performance of abor permit located sufficient time to any emergency 2d, rejected situa tion. 604 P. at 913. The other court exception a broad tion as an it declined statute when afford interpretation phrase, possible,” notice re modifies the "if which quirement. emergency simply can Even where the reached, subject applies; to its sanction the statute merely granted has been he exercised “reason an affirmative defense that diligence” attempting notify parents. Ibid. The able locate and majority purports support its statute on draw Utah view point statute, from Massachusetts a Massachusetts construed Supreme Court, ante, Judicial see n. 14. provisions without with the of the statute complying

even best though he believed was do so.” Civ. No. ¶7). (Dec. 1978) (Findings C-78-2719 of Fact Even if physician, further review other than her counselor, adults necessary attorney and to assess the minor’s inter- were best II, S., see Bellotti ests, 640-641, (opinion rejection any no- J.), exception Utah’s to the Powell, requirement is pregnant plainly tice minor overbroad. II, In Bellotti unwilling we were to cut a minor off pregnant any beyond from to help avenue obtain her parents, yet and Utah just statute does that. In I join believe this area, Court must the state courts legislatures and which have acknowledged undoubted reality: minors, social in circumstances, some some have capacity and need to their determine health care needs with- involving out their parents. recognized As we in Planned Parenthood Central Mo.

“[a]ny independent parent interest the ter- may have mination the minor daughter’s pregnancy is no more weighty than right of privacy competent mature enough to have become pregnant.”51 Utah itself pregnancy-related has allocated entirely health care decisions to the minor.52 Where physician has cause to doubt minor’s actual ability consent, and understand by law he pursue must the requisites of the State’s informed procedures.53 consent The legitimate State cannot have adding interest to this scheme notice mandatory parental of the minor’s abortion not decision. does This conclusion authority As one medical argue observed: can that an “One well , enough adolescent old sexually , make the . decision to be active . and responsible who is then enough professional seek assistance for his problem, ipso enough facto mature health to consent to his own Hofmann, supra care.” n. Goldstein, J., 51. See Yale L. at 633. (4) Utah Code Ann. (f) 78-14-5 § 53Utah Code Ann. requires voluntary 76-7-305 § informed supra. written consent. See n. chil- guide their responsibility traditional parents’ affect personal and moral con- especially development, dren’s that the Utah persuaded I am cerns. child-rearing role, this traditional

necessary to assure right to the minor’s fundamental choose burdens pregnancy.54 to terminate her whether with her IV application clear of our prece- eagerness avoid its today a mistaken relies on view of class- the Court

dents, requirements. standing prudential law action by the presented complaint of the issue avoidance Court’s prece- our intact. Under those precedents nonetheless leaves infringes challenged statute I have no doubt dents, to minor right privacy attached the constitutional upon complete pregnancy. or terminate her decision woman’s justifies None of reasons offered State intru- to serve them. Rather statute is tailored sion, serving judgment, than enhance the in cases physician’s implementation of prevents the statute such physician’s pro- medical recommendation. Rather than moting transfer held of information neglects anything

minor’s physician, require the statute more moments be- than communication from the fore respecting the abortion. realm private Rather than ma- family life, justice the statute invokes the criminal chinery of the State in to influence the interactions attempt family. within the I judg- Accordingly, would reverse ment upheld Supreme Court of Utah insofar as against statute constitutional attack.

54 Wynn Carey, 2d, Cf. 582 F. at 1388. notes 428 U. at 91 omitted), quoting S., curring opinion). Accord, S., (dissenting opinion). 443 U. at 657 interpretation consistently In addition, “constitutional has recognized authority claim to in their parents’ own to direct the of their children rearing household is basic Ginsberg York, society.” the structure of our v. New 390 Quilloin Walcott, S. In 629, (1968). U. 639 v. 434 U. S. 246 (1978), expanded Court on this theme: recognized “We have on numerous occasions that relationship parent constitutionally between and child is protected. See, g., Yoder, e. S. Wisconsin v. 205, Illinois, 231-233 (1972); Stanley v. S. 645 U. [405 Meyer (1972)]; Nebraska, 390, U. S. (1923). Tt cardinal with care custody, is us that and nurture of the child parents, reside in the whose first primary function preparation and freedom include ” obligations the state hinder.’ supply can neither nor Id., quoting Massachusetts, Prince U. S. 158, 166 (1944). R., See also Parham v. J. Pierce v. (1979); U. S. Sisters, Society recog U. have We play nized that have important “guiding an role” in the upbringing II, supra, of their children, Bellotti 633-639, presumptively which counseling them includes important decisions. B nor gives Utah judges The statute neither a veto I, Bellotti power over minor’s abortion decision.17 As in “we are concerned with a statute directed toward minors, as unquestionably greater inability to whom there are risks an informed consent.” As give ap 147. minors, plied dependent and plainly to immature statute important family considerations of integrity18 serves and Bellotti II. protecting which we identified in adolescents19 addition, applied class, the statute serves a sig providing opportunity nificant state interest for par supply ents to essential medical other information ato physician. medical, emotional, psychological con sequences of an serious can lasting; abortion are when particularly patient so is An immature.20 ade quate psychological history medical and case important

Case Details

Case Name: H. L. v. Matheson

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Mar 23, 1981

Citation: 450 U.S. 398

Docket Number: 79-5903

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS