*1 HODGSON MINNESOTA et al. et al. v. Argued No. 88-1125. November 1 989 Decided June1990* 88-1309, *Together Hodgson with No. et al. v. et on Minnesota also al.. certiorari to the same court. *4 J., Stevens, judgment announced the of the Court and delivered the I, II, VII, opinion IV, respect of the Court with in to Parts and which O’Connor, JJ., Brennan, opinion Blackmun, joined, an Marshall, and III, J., Brennan, respect joined, opinion
with to Part in which an with VI, O’Connor, J., respect joined, in dissenting V and which Parts and O’Connor, J., opinion respect opinion Part VIII. filed an concur- Marshall, part J., ring concurring judgment, post, p. in in and 458. opinion concurring part, concurring in in judgment part, filed an in and JJ., dissenting Blackmun, in part, joined, post, in which Brennan and Scalia, J., p. opinion concurring 461. an in judgment part filed in and Kennedy, dissenting J., part, post, p. opinion concurring in 479. filed Rehnquist, in judgment part dissenting part, and in which C. Scalia, JJ., joined, post, p. and White and 480. argued petitioners Janet the cause for Benshoof respondents
No. and in No. 88-1125 88-1309. With her on Lynn Kathryn Pine, Paltrow, the briefs were N. M. Rachel Kolbert, Powell, Pentelovitch, John A. William Z. Re- and A. becca Palmer. Deputy Attorney Tunheim,
John R. Chief Min General of argued respondents nesota, the cause for No. petitioners in No. 88-1309. With him on the briefs were Attorney Humphrey III, General, H. Hubert F. Catharine Haukedahl, Jr., General, Raschke, Solicitor Kenneth E. As Attorney Special General, Galus, sistant B. and John Assist † Attorney ant General.
†Briefs urging of amici curiae reversal were filed for Amer ican Psychological by Association et al. Donald V. and Mark D. Bersoff Schneider; for League of et Anti-Defamation B’Nai B’rith al. Kerr, Bialkin, by Peggy Meyer Kenneth Eisenberg, J. L. Justin Fin J. Freeman, Kahn, ger, Jeffrey Sinensky, P. Steven M. L. Jill and Li D. via Thompson. Forsythe
Clarke D. and Kent Masterson Brown filed a brief for the Asso- Physicians ciation American and Surgeons urging as amicus curiae affirmance. Briefs amici curiae were by filed the United States Solicitor Gen- Starr, Acting Attorney Schiffer, eral Deputy Assistant General Solicitor Larkin, Merrill, Jr., Marzen, Stephen General Paul J. J. R. Steven Valentine; Guste, Jr., by for the State of Louisiana et al. J. William Attor- Lieux, Louisiana, ney Schaye General of and Meredith H. Assist- Jenifer Levert, General, ant Attorneys Rayner, Ann P. A. Jo Thomas Robert K. Webster, Corbin, Attorney Arizona, General of L. Attorney William Gen- Missouri, Preate, Jr.,
eral Attorney and Ernest D. Penn- General of sylvania; Organizations for 274 Support Roe Bade Kathleen *5 judgment of the the Court announced Stevens Justice respect opinion with to Parts the of the Court delivered and respect opinion Part to III VII, and an with II, IV, I, respect joins, opinion with to an which Brennan Justice joins, VI in which and V and Parts O’Connor Justice opinion respect dissenting Part VIII. 144.343(2)(Y) (1988), §§ statute, Minn. A Minnesota Stat. — exceptions, provides, that no abortion shall be with certain years age performed of until at under 18 least on woman parents of have been notified. both her subdi- hours after (1) mandatory the is unless 2-4 of statute notice visions physician attending immediate abortion certifies prevent necessary is the woman’s death and there insuf- (2) provide required notice; both of her ficient time (3) writing; or the woman declares have consented neglect, or which is a victim of abuse she given proper of must be to the event notice her declaration Appeals of authorities. United States Court for Sullivan, Estrich, Jordan, Rogers; Estelle H. M. Susan R. and Barbara by Dellapenna; Academy Joseph W. for for the American of Medical Ethics College by Gynecologists et al. the American of Obstetricians and Carter Lawton, Allen, Stephan E. Esty, Elizabeth H. Ann E. Laurie Phillips, G. Association, Inc., Rockett, Klein; Family I. R. and Joel for the American Coleman; League Religious by Peggy M. for the Catholic for and Civil Strahan; Rights by Nancy Thomas W. for et al. J. Gannon and Center Henn; Options by for the Elliot for Population for et al. John H. Institute by Kaufmann; Focus Stephen Research et al. R. for on the Social Sciences Shoivers; Family by by H. Knights al. Robert of Columbus et for Anderson; Sullivan, Jr., Hasson, and Carl A. Brendan V. Kevin J. for Draheim; Synod by E. for the Philip National Luthern Church-Missouri Jr.; Inc., Committee, by Right Bopp, for the United to Life James States Representative by Christopher E. Chopko; Catholic Mark for Conference Assembly Bopp; H. al. Mr. for General Smith et Members Quinlin K. Pennsylvania by Philip Maura J. the Commonwealth Murren; Pregnancy for 13 Individual Members the Panel on Adolescent Childbearing Development Research and the Committee on Child Anderson; H. Policy by E. M. and Pamela Public Hannah Lieberman Lynch, Jr., Joseph pro se. James
423 unanimously Eighth sitting pro- Circuit, banc, en held these granted 88-1309, In unconstitutional. No. we visions petition holding. that State’s to review Subdivision 6 of the provides enjoins if a court same statute the enforcement requirement of notice subdivision the same shall be effec- pregnant permit- tive unless the woman obtains a court order By ting proceed. the abortion 7 vote of Court Appeals upheld constitutionality 6. of subdivision plaintiffs’ petition granted 88-1125, No. we to review holding. require- follow, now For reasons that we conclude that the pregnant ment of not notice to both of minor’s is reasonably legitimate related to state that sub- interests and majority A division is unconstitutional. different separate opinions, Court, for reasons stated concludes that Accordingly, judgment subdivision 6 is constitutional. Appeals entirety the Court of its is affirmed.
I parental The notice was enacted in 1981 an statute as amendment to the Minors’ Consent to Health Act. Services statute, The earlier which remains effect as subdivision § § 144.346, of 144.343 had and as modified the common-law parental procedure consent for medical performed “[a]ny give on It minors. authorized minor” to any effective consent without involvement for the “pregnancy treatment of and conditions associated there- drug disease, with, venereal alcohol and other abuse.”1 § presently provides: 1Subdivision of 144.348 medical, “Any may give minor consent for effective mental and other presence health pregnancy services to determine the of or to treat disease, therewith, conditions associated venereal drug alcohol and other abuse, person required." and the consent of no other is permits professional notify The statute treating the health the minor to parents only jeopardize when a failure to do so would the minor's health. (1988). $ Minn. Stat. 144.346 age,2 applied to abortion unlike of its statute, others services. authority qualified “un- an amendment
The 1981 give emancipated effective consent to abortion minor”3 to physician notify agent requiring “the by or an that either her personally mail at be parent” certified least hours performed.4 “parent” procedure The term is de fore *7 parents pregnant 3 mean “both of the in subdivision to fined exception they living.” No is for made if are both woman (1976); (Supp. §577A-2 §431.062 Mo. Rev. Stat. Rev. Haw. Stat. 2 See 1971). Zuekerman, Rights the of Mi generally Pilpel Abortion and & See (D. Abortion, 275, 279-280 Walbert & J. But nors, Society the Law 1973). eds. ler 3 statutory emancipation in Minne is no definition of Although there (Minn. Streitz, 1985), sota, App. 137 we N. W. 2d Streitz see representation State’s that Minn. Stat. question no reason to the have (1988) terminate her apply to the minor’s decision to §§ 144.341and 144.342 88-1125, 2,p. n. 2. sec Respondents Brief in No. Those pregnancy. par living separate apart from her provide that minor who is a tions may give has a child effective con is either married or borne or who ents person. of services without the consent other to medical sent applies guardian a for whom a statute to woman also The finding incompetency. of a appointed because of conservator has been or 144.343(2). portion challenged statute is not this case. § This of the provides: Subdivision 13.02, abor- provisions of section subdivision no “Notwithstanding the unemaneipated performed upon minor .... until operation shall be tion pending operation has de- notice of the been least 48 hours after written at 2 to 4. specified in subdivisions in the manner livered “(a) parent place the at usual notice be to the shall addressed personally parent by physician parent to the of the and delivered abode agent. anor (a), “(b) made delivery required In clause notice shall be lieu parent place usual of abode of mail by certified addressed to requested delivery to the parent receipt with and restricted return only postal employee can the mail to the which means deliver addressee delivery at 12 shall be deemed to occur Time of addressee. authorized regular delivery place, mail day next which takes noon on the on o’clock subsequent mailing.” par parent, biological parent, or noncustodial divorced pregnant lived with woman’s married or who never
ent only provide, if however, that The statute does mother.5 living, parent “if the second one cannot be located is or one reasonably parent diligent through effort,” notice to one is most intrusive in the Nation. Of the Minnesota statute is the 5 The parental participation the minor’s decision to termi require States express participation only par one pregnancy, 27 make nate her States, Idaho, Tennessee, Utah, required. An additional three ent is notify parents guardian” but do “the or not require an unmarried minor parental unit “parents” to either specify whether refers member parent notice to both. to one constitutes constructive whether notice §39-15-202(f) §18-609(6) (1987); (Supp. Tenn. Code Ann. Idaho Code 76-7-304(2) (1990). contrast, § Arkansas 1989); Ann. does Utah Code exceptions notify parents provides both but require an unmarried minor reasonably diligent parent through be located ef the second “cannot where unknown,” fort,” parent has not been in parent’s “whereabouts are or a year, parent one minor’s or the minor for least with the custodial contact 20-16-802, §§ Ark. Ann. guilty of sexual abuse. Code or the 1989). only (Supp. requires Delaware the consent 20-16-808 household; living if the not residing in the same minor is both who are *8 Ann., parent of one is sufficient. Del. Code. parents, of her the consent (1987). 1790(b)(3) require § Illinois law does not the consent of a Tit. Stat., parent family or is not available. Ill. Rev. has deserted the who (1989). *181-54(3) Kentucky requires an minor to obtain unmarried ch. available,” provides guardian parents, or “both if but legal of a the consent available, parent available parents are not the consent of the that if both (Michie (b) 1990). 311.732(2)(a), §§ Ky. Rev. Ann. shall Stat. suffice. law, an unmarried minor need obtain the consent of Massachusetts Under physician parent if “is the within a only parent the other unavailable to one manner,” parents in or if are time and a reasonable the divorced reasonable § custody. parent not have Mass. Gen. Laws 112:12S the other does and (1988). only parent pri Mississippi requires law the consent of the care, custody, parents the minor if are divorced mary and control of the or and, cases, only apart in living all other the consent of one unmarried and in parent parent not available time or manner. if the other is reasonable 1989). §41-41-53(2) (Supp. Finally, Ann. North Dakota re Miss. Code parent parents separated if only the consent of the custodial the are quires divorced, legal subject guardianship. if the minor to guardian or the is and (1981). §14-02.1-03.1 N. D. Cent. Code 426 exceptions for cases in which It also makes
sufficient.6 necessary prevent prior emergency notice “is to treatment already given parents have their death,” the woman’s both writing, proper authorities are or advised the consent physical or abuse.7 The stat minor a victim of sexual is the subjects person performing an abortion violation ute liability and to in an action criminal sanctions civil terms to its brought by any person “wrongfully notification.”8 denied provides, part: Subdivision section, ‘parent’ preg of this means both of the purposes “For they pregnant if living, are both one woman woman if nant through reasonably only living is or if the second one cannot be located one effort, guardian pregnant if the or the or conservator woman has diligent one.” provides: Subdivision required this section if:
“No notice shall be under “(a) physician attending pregnant The certifies woman’s medical necessary prevent is record that the abortion woman’s death notice; provide required time to or there is insufficient “(b) persons writing by person or who The abortion authorized notice; or are entitled to “(c) minor is a pregnant woman declares that she victim of sexual abuse, neglect, physical or as defined in section 626.556. Notice of abuse provided proper as in sec- declaration shall be made to the authorities 626.556, 3.” tion subdivision (1988), § Minn. if the minor declares that she is the Under Stat. 626.556 abuse, physician’s agent report the physician the notified or must victim hours, agency welfare law enforcement within abuse the local §§626.556(3)(a), (3)(e), immediately whereupon agency the welfare “shall purposes protective social services conduct assessment offer abuses, enhancing the safeguarding and welfare of the preventing further minor, family preserving possible.” life whenever neglected abused or 626.556(10)(a). victim, notify agency § If it must interviews the investigation un- parent of fact of the interview at the conclusion *9 626.556(10)(c). § sub- order. Individuals who are less it obtains a court of investi- investigation right of access to the record the jects of the have a §626.556(11). gation. 8 provides: Subdivision 5 shall a misde- in violation of this section be of an abortion “Performance by person wrongfully de- action grounds be for a civil meanor and shall judicial bypass two-parent Subdivision 6 authorizes a “temporarily notice if subdivision is ever or permanently” by judicial enjoined pregnant order. If the “any judge competent juris minor can convince of a court of capable giving diction” that she is “mature and informed proposed abortion,” consent to the or that an abortion with parents out notice to both would be in her interest, best the physician proceed court can authorize to without notice. provides bypass procedure The statute that the shall be con expedited, right fidential, that it shall be that the minor has a court-appointed counsel, to and that she shall be afforded day, days free access to the court “24 hours seven a week.” denying appealed expe An order an abortion can be on an authorizing basis, dited but an order an abortion without no subject appeal.9 tification is not person nied notification. A shall not be held liable under this section if the person by person establishes written evidence that upon relied evi- prudent dence sufficient to person convince careful and represen- that the pregnant regarding tations of the woman necessary comply information true, with this section are bona fide and if person or attempted has notice, diligence reasonable to deliver but has been unable to do so.” provides: Subdivision 6 “If subdivision of this law is ever temporarily permanently or re- order, enjoined by judicial strained or subdivision 2 shall be enforced as (c) though following paragraph incorporated were paragraph as of that subdivision; however, provided, that if temporary such permanent or re- dissolved, straining injunction order or stayed is ever or or otherwise effect, effect, ceases to have subdivision shall have full force and without being modified the addition to the following paragraph substitute which shall have no or injunction force effect until or unless an restraining or again order effect. “(c)(i) If pregnant such a woman elects not to allow the notification of conservator, one or both of her guardian or or any judge of a court shall, motion, competent jurisdiction upon petition, ap- and after an propriate hearing, physician perform authorize a if abortion said judge pregnant determines that the women is capable mature and giving proposed informed consent to the abortion. If judge said determines that mature, pregnant woman is not or if pregnant woman does not mature, judge claim to be shall performance determine whether the *10 severability provision, contains a but it does
The statute purposes. The a of its Minnesota At include statement not purposes appar torney that those are has advised us General they statutory recog the text and that “include the from ent relationships, fostering parent-child promoting and nition pro in choice, a child a difficult and traumatic and to counsel viding naturally to those who are most concerned for notice District Court found that child’swelfare.”10 The for primary protect purpose legislation was to the well- by encouraging being them to discuss with their of minors pregnanc parents the decision whether to terminate their legislature found that the was motivated a It also ies.11 parents, upon guardian, her without notification of her or con- abortion an physician in her and shall authorize a would be best interests servator judge if said the abortion without such notification concludes that perform thereby. woman’s best interests would be served pregnant “(ii) pregnant may participate proceedings a woman in Such the court behalf, may appoint guardian and the ad litem her own court for her. on shall, however, right appointed has a to court The court advise her she shall, counsel, upon request, provide her with such her counsel. “(iii) Proceedings the court this section shall be confidential and under given precedence pending matters so that the be such over other shall delay may promptly without so reach decision as to serve court pregnant judge A interests of the woman. court who conducts best writing specific under this section shall make factual find- proceedings legal supporting conclusions the decision and shall order a record ings and judge’s including findings to be maintained own of the evidence conclusions. “(iv) any expedited appeal An confidential be available to shall such authorizing an an pregnant woman for whom the court denies order abor- authorizing notification. An an abortion without notifi- tion without order subject appeal. filing required No fees shall be shall not be cation pregnant appellate level. Access woman at either the trial or such motion, purposes petition or and access to the trial court for the of such a purposes making appeal from denial of the appellate courts for same, days day, 24 hours a pregnant shall be afforded such a woman seven week.” (hereinafter Br.); 88-1309, p. Minn. see 10 Brieffor Petitioner No. id., at 8-9. also it purposes in when legislature 11“The Minnesota had mind several pro- primary purpose § was to Minn. The
amended Stat. 144.343 1981. desire to deter and dissuade minors from to termi choosing nate their General, pregnancies.12 Attorney however, *11 disclaims reliance on this purpose.13
II was commenced on This litigation 30, 1981, two July days before the effective date of the parental notification statute. The plaintiffs include two Minnesota doctors who specialize obstetrics and four clinics gynecology, abortion and providing contraceptive services metropolitan areas Minnesota, six pregnant minors a class of representing minors, pregnant and the mother of a minor. pregnant Plaintiffs that alleged the statute violated the Due Process and Protection Equal Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and various provi sions of the Minnesota Constitution.
Based on the allegations their verified complaint, the District Court entered a temporary order restraining enjoin- well-being teet the encouraging of minors minors to discuss with their parents the decision whether to terminate pregnancies. Encourag- their ing such salutory discussion was intended to achieve several results. Par- provide can support guidance ents emotional and thus forestall irratio- n nal decision-making. provide and emotional Parents can also information concerning history may minor’s medical of which the minor not be addition, supervise post-abortion aware. par- Parents can also In care. support ents can psychological the minor’s well-being mitigate and thus psychological sequelae may procedure.” adverse attend the abortion (Minn. 1986). 756, Supp. 648 F. finding The District Court’s 59 reads as follows: “The court finds that a desire to deter choosing and dissuade minors from pregnancies to terminate their legislature. Testimony also motivated the legislative considering proposed before committee notification re- quirement supporters hoped indicated that influential of the measure it by influencing carry ‘would save lives’ pregnancies minors to their to term Id., rather than aborting.” at 766. 13“‘Thecourt found also that a desire to dissuade from choosing minors 59, pregnancies legislature. Finding terminate their also motivated the Hodgson Appendix finding 25a. This was than the based on no more testi mony legislative supporters before a committee of some of the act who evidence, however, hoped it ‘wouldsave lives.’ There is no direct that this any legislator.” was motive of Minn. Br. n. 2. ing statute. After a of subdivision the enforcement injunction preliminary hearing, which the court entered App. 31. District Court re- effect. still remains validity judicial bypass however, to rule on the fused, procedure in advance of trial.14 District trial, a 5-week Court concluded after two-parent the 48- notification
that both waiting period It further were invalid. concluded hour “parent,” which is carried over into of the term the definition requirement, not severable from the re- was declared the entire stat- the statute. The court mainder of enjoined defendants from enforc- unconstitutional ute ing it. Appeals three-judge panel of the Court of affirmed.
A *12 compulsory require notification court first held that The pregnant provide if the minor with invalid it does not ment is procedure option in court which she can the of an alternative maturity performance of an either her or that demonstrate inbe her best interests. without notification would abortion Cert, rely p. App. Second, 62a. 88-1125, Pet. for in No. concerning heavily findings ing of the District Court on the requirement two-parent impact on families of a notice separated, unmarried, divorced, are which the panel re notification concluded that the unconstitutional also bypass. judicial quirement The not be saved could parent minor and her custodial court reasoned that a mature position no whether in a better than a court to determine are tifying best the child’s would be the noncustodial they to submit not be forced interests and that should re notice an unconstitutional a “Hobson’s choice” between panel bypass.15’ fur quirement The and a burdensome court summary 23, 1985, partial judgment January granted the court 14 On claims, ruling but reserved plaintiffs’ several of the favor of defendants on trial. applied until constitutionality 6 as on the of subdivision after be is unconstitutional provision underlying 15“Where the notification further it fails to families respect to children of broken cause with requirement two-parent was not held that the notice ther severable.16 Appeals opinion panel and the Court of vacated, was
The (CA8 1988). The 2d 1452 853 F. the case en banc. reheard summarily rejected unanimously the State’s sub- court requirement two-parent was constitu- notice that the mission bypass procedure. Id., any at 1456-1457. without tional majority however, that subdivision 6 of concluded, agreed that the the District Court It statute was valid. may development that a demonstrate a full factual record operation,” id., facially is “unconstitutional valid statute findings concern- . detailed factual “the . . and that obtaining in Minne-' ing general an abortion difficulties compared procedure, bypass to its and the trauma sota practi-' questions about the effectiveness, raise considerable interests, however, minor or minor whose best a mature significant state’s parent is forced to contrary notifying the non-custodial are interests requirement or submit to the burden- unconstitutional suffer the either fails to further a Hobson’s choice bypass procedure. Such some court judicial alterna- as there must be constitutional significant interest. Just notice or there must be a constitutional requirement, so tive to a notice bypass. court alternative to the consent bypass procedure that the court reason for our conclusion “The second that where the two-parent is does not save court, divorced, parent, and not a the minor and/or custodial parents are par- notifying the non-custodial whether position best to determine where the minor In situations in the child’s best interests. ent would be *13 par- relationship parent but the custodial with the non-custodial good has a not, consulting with nothing prevent the minor from there is to ent does parent, and custodial parent if desires. The minor she so the non-custodial however, superior position, major and should by of their interest virtue whom, anyone, if to notice opportunity the to decide alone have Cert, App. in to Pet. for given." should be minor’s abortion decision omitted). (citations 88-1125, pp. 68a-69a No. constitutionality or sev- question of the panel not reach the 16The did judge period. concurring A mandatory waiting erability the 48-hour of seeking an pregnant that a minor panel that a agreed with the constitutional notify parent could not withstand a noncustodial abortion Id., at 72a. bypass procedure. by a court scrutiny and was not saved majority’s opinion, In Ibid. the wisdom of this statute.” cal legislature questions the however, were for consider those served valid state interests: the interest the statute because pregnant “‘encouraging minor to seek the an unmarried very parents making important help of her the and advice child,”’17 not to bear a as well as the in- whether or decision dependent parents upbringing of interest of the the their children.18 noting challenge not the
After that the State did District findings, id., 1462, at the court concluded these Court’s placed emphasis one-parent no-parent findings undue on though two-parent require- households. For even the notice may pregnant further the interests of the minor ment not rights cases, of mature mi- such “best-interest” and protected by bypass procedure. nors were nevertheless importantly, applied pregnant regard- minors, More “as to all family circumstances, of their court less district did not (as parental family whether distin- consider interests alone) guished justified from the interests of the minor two-parent requirement.” Id., notice at 1463. The court wrote: enjoined
“The district court the entire statute because impact two-parent requirement pri- notice marily upon group pregnant minors, one without con- sidering bypass, the effect of the or the family recognized interests which have been Supreme concentrating upon impact Court. pregnant living the statute on the minor not with both parents, preg- the mature and on or non best-interest in Bellotti 2d, 1460, quoting opinion 17 853F. from Justice Powell’s (Bellotti II). (1979) Baird, 443 U. S. suggested The court that the also statute furthered the “state interest providing opportunity supply medical and essential 2d, physician,” other information 853 F. but the has not State provides argued upholding here that interest an additional basis for the statute. *14 only gave the district court limited consider- minor,
nant pregnant minors or more who live ation to the 50% pregnant parents who are immature and to minors both may require best interests involve- and whose that an undue The district court’s determination ment. group the statute unconstitu- on the one renders burden contrary Supreme all to the Court’s decision tional for plainly notice-consent/bypass procedure serves that narrowly pro- important and is drawn to state interests only Considering . . . the stat- tect those interests. pregnant applied minors, all a whole and as ute as two-parent requirement does not unconstitu- the tionally notice right.” Id., minor’s abortion
burden the omitted). (citation argument Appeals rejected the that the 48- also Court imposed significant waiting period mi- burden on the hour waiting right, finding period could nor’s abortion scheduling appointment concurrently of an for run with the judg- procedure. Accordingly, the court reversed the reaching question of the District Court without ment severability.19 major- dissent, two of the court criticized the members
ity ignoring trial,” in a five-week “the evidence amassed for relying judicial bypass procedure uphold “to an un- on the requirement,” two-parent and for notification constitutional creating right, apparently dimension, “a new of constitutional of their minor chil- to receive notice for non-custodial joined Id., of the dissenters dren’s activities.” 1466. One single- expressing opinion that “a a third dissenter parent requirement would withstand constitu- granted challenge.” Id., certiorari, We tional at 1472. (1989). U. S. rejected the statute violated the argument
19'Thecourt also only pregnancy- as the Equal singling Protection Clause out abortion equal procedure at 1466. The Id.. requiring medical notification. related protection challenge is not renewed here.
434
Ill men and women: difference between a natural There is A to children. woman’s bear capacity women have the Only a of her a child is component bear to conceive decision of the the Due Process Clause is protected liberty Harris v. to the Constitution. Amendment Fourteenth Carey Population McRae, v. (1980); 297, 316-318 448 U. S. International, (1977); Cleve- 685, 678, Services 431 U. S. 687 LaFleur, 414 Bd. Education 639-640 632, land v. U. S. of id., Wade, Roe 113, (1973); 410 S. 152-153 (1974); v. U. Baird, Eisenstadt v. 405 J., concurring); (Stewart, 168-170 Connecticut, (1972); Griswold v. U. 381 S. 438, 453 S.U. (1965) judgment). 479, concurring (White, cases, protects as those Clause, interpreted That and pri- such decisions independently make right woman’s Roe, 598-600, Whalen v. n. 589, 429 U. S. vately, see intrusion. (1977), governmental free of unwarranted facing severe detriment “Moreover, potentially Wade, Roe v. S., 153, 410 U. woman, see pregnant Indeed, minority. considering her mitigated by is not skills, financial re- education, employment her probable motherhood unwanted sources, maturity, emotional In addi- for a minor. burdensome may be exceptionally it legal adult tion, brings the fact of child having the age like of parenthood, attainment responsibility, the ter- of the traditional criteria for of is one majority, sum, In of minority. mination of the disabilities legal in which a minor the are situations denying there few have conse- decision will important to make right Baird, and indelible.” Bellotti so quences grave (Bellotti II) J.). Powell, (1979) (opinion S. U. Mo. v. Dan Parenthood Central Planned As we stated forth, (1976), the decision to make this right 428 U. S. when only come into being mature and magically “do[es] not one attains the state-defined age Thus, majority.” constitutional protection against unjustified state intrusion into the process whether or not to bear a deciding child ex- tends to minors as well as adult women. pregnant abortion, cases involving as cases involving right to travel or the right marry, identification of the con- interest stitutionally protected merely beginning analysis. State of travel regulation and of marriage is obvi- ously permissible even though State not may categorically *16 Shapiro Thomp- exclude from borders, nonresidents its v. son, 394 631 618, (1969), U. S. or deny prisoners right Safley, Turner v. (1987). 482 marry, 78, U. S. 94-99 But regulation constitutionally protected decisions, such as where a person shall reside or whom he or she shall marry, must be on predicated legitimate state concerns other than with the choice the disagreement individual has made. Cf. Safley, supra; Loving Virginia, Turner v. v. 388 S. 121, U. (1967). area, the abortion a State have no may obligation its own spend money, facilities, or use its own to subsidize g., e. abortions for minors or nontherapeutic See, adults. Reproduc- Roe, Maher v. cf. Webster v. 432 U. 464 (1977); S. Services, tive Health (1989); id., 492 U. S. 608-511 concurring part and concurring (O’Connor, A judgment). State’s value judgment childbirth favoring over abortion may provide for decisions in- adequate support such volving funds, allocation of public but not for simply sub- a state decision for an stituting individual decision that a woman Otherwise, has a to make for right herself. in- terest in liberty protected by the Due Process Clause would be a A nullity. state policy favoring childbirth over abortion is not in itself sufficient justification for overriding woman’s decision or for “obstacles —absolute or oth- placing erwise —in the woman’s pregnant to an abortion.” path Maher, McRae, see also Harris v. S., 432 at 474; U. 448 S.,U. at 315-316. does rest its of Minnesota not de- cases the State
In these judgment. any Indeed, value it this statute on such fense affirmatively up- aas basis for that state interest disavows judges holding Moreover, it is clear that the state this law.20 interpreted 3,000 decisions im- the statute over have who procedures legislative bypass plementing found have no its pregnancy. to terminate On to disfavor decision intent they approved contrary, in but a handful of cases have all unquestion- statute Because the Minnesota decisions.21 such ably places path pregnant minor’s to an obstacles abor- establishing has the burden of its constitu- tion, the State tionality. analysis, Minnesota statute cannot reasonably Under imposes it are not re- be if the obstacles sustained Safley, legitimate Turner state v. interests. Cf. lated Population Carey International, 97; Services S.,U. J.); (opinion Bolton, Powell, Doe v. 410 U. S.,U. at 704 S. (1973). 194-195, IV constitutionality of The Court has considered the statutes parental providing consent or six years.22 during Although the last abortion cases decided *17 Baird, in statute reviewed Bellotti v. 428 the Massachusetts (Bellotti (1976) I), required Bellotti II the con- U. 132 and S. parents, in H. and the Utah statute reviewed L. sent of both 20 14, supra. n. 21The District found: Court 3,573 compiled, bypass period “During the for which statistics have been petitions petitions were in courts. were withdrawn filed Minnesota Six 3,558 granted.” petitions were were before decision. Nine denied 55, Supp., Finding No. 648 F. at 765. 22 52, Danforth, Parenthood Central Mo. v. 428 Planned U. S. 72-75 of (Bellotti II, Baird, I); (1976) Bellotti (1976); Bellotti v. 428 132 443 U. S. Matheson, (1981); Akron v. (1979); H. L. v. Akron 450 U. U. 622 S. 398 S. Inc., (1983); Health, 416, Reproductive 439-442 Center S. U. Assn, Mo., Ashcroft, City, Inc. Parenthood Kansas Planned of (1983); id., (O’Connor, concurring judg U. at 505 S. part dissenting part). ment in (1981), required
v. Matheson,
23 The required physician Utah statute reviewed in Matheson “[n]otify, possible, upon if guardian or of the woman whom the 76-7-304(2) (1990). performed.” § abortion is to be Utah Code Ann. Un like today, statute Minnesota under review the Utah statute did not “parents.” define ambiguous the term The statute is toas whether the unit, parent term individually refers to each rather to the which father, represented by could be either the mother or the and neither the argument par nor the discussion in Matheson notice to indicated that both law, issue, required. ents was State to the extent it addresses is to contrary: Although provides Utah law that a noncustodial re enlistment, right tains marriage, performance to consent to and the major treatment, surgical right medical or to notice the minor's abor among parent’s tion is specific not residual rights and duties. Utah 78-3a-2(13) 1989). § Code Ann. (Supp. figures See, 24 The not are those throughout dissimilar to the Nation. *18 g., e. Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae (“It is that age percent estimated of white children born spent in 1980 will have at least only parent, some time with one homes") percent of children will (citing black lived in one-parent have District Court the basis extensive testi- The found—on two-parent requirement mony trial —that the at particularly both the minor and harmful effects on had parent parents sepa- when the were divorced or custodial parent the minor and absent were Relations between rated. notification, the forced as a result of not reestablished thereby producing disappointment in the minor “when often relationship anticipated her with the reestablishment of an d[id] Id., parent 769. Moreover, occur.” not absent parent “[t]he of the to the reaction custodial anger, notification is often one of resentment frus- forced parent,” ibid., the intrusion of absent fear tration custody rights parent will threaten that notification intrafamily Tragically, promote violence. those or otherwise were often realized: fears
“Involuntary biologicalpar- involvement of second especially minor is when the comes ent detrimental from dysfunctional family. abusive, of the mi- an Notification pregnancy provoke can nor’s and abortion decision vio- parents separated. lence, are even where the divorced or may have shown violence and harassment Studies beyond especially divorce, continue well when chil- are involved. dren perception dysfunc- . . in a Furthermore,
“. mother’s family there be violence if the tional will father likely daughter’s pregnancy learns to be accu- perception.” rate Ibid. District Court further found:
“Twenty twenty-five percent go of the minors who accompanied by parent one to court either are who already have knows and abortion or consents told pregnancy. their one of their intent to terminate voluntarily majority The vast of these informed Course, Hofferth, Updating Marriage Children’s Life J. and Fam. 93 (1985)). *19 separated spouses from are women who are divorced or years. Going they seen in to court to whom have not notifying parent privacy the other burdens the avoid accompanying parent. The the minor and the both parents angry that their consent is suf- custodial are not bring notification will the absent ficient and fear that family in into the an intrusive and abusive back way.” Ibid. two-parent
The District Court also found that the notifica requirement in families in tion had adverse effects which the parents. particu minor lives with both These effects were larly pronounced distressingly large in number in of cases family problem. which violence is a serious The court found many by in in minors Minnesota “live fear of violence family rape, “are, fact, incest, members” and victims of ne glect mi and violence.”25’The District Court found that few advantage exception nors can take of the for a minor who de physical clares that she is a victim of sexual or abuse because report obligation the information to the authorities privacy. Findings attendant loss of 46 and and the family indicating that occurs in two million families “Studies violence substantially in the United States underestimate the actual number of such alone, reports average that there are an families. Minnesota indicate 31,200 by partners year. incidents of assault on women their each Based statistics, by suggest ‘battering’ of women on these state officials that the partners recognized perhaps frequently come to be as the most their ‘has violent crime the state’ of Minnesota. These numbers do not committed abuse, abuse, psychological physical include incidents of or sexual low-level batterer, which are not abuse of sort of the child of a or those incidents family reported. Many in fear violence minors Minnesota live members; fact, incest, are, rape, neglect many of them victims of impossible accurately magnitude prob violence. It is assess dysfunctional family in Minnesota members of fam lem of violence because characteristically par ilies are secretive about such matters and minors are ticularly to reveal violence or abuse in their families. Thus the reluctant family dramatically underreported.” violence 648 F. incidence of such Supp., at 768-769. family Supp., This about violence at 764.26 concern F.
648 helps many why explain found that the District Court notified actu both be instances *20 family ally impairs Minors who otherwise communication. unwilling parent when to do so such were inform one would likely parent in the also tortur would involve notification why explaining the second to court ous ordeal The notified. court found: not be should ordinarily parent may notify would one “Minors who doing by two-parent require- from so be dissuaded go who to court for authorization A minor must ment. parent. may elect to tell either event not in notify requirement that minors both instances, the these biological parents actually parent-child commu- reduces 769.27 at nication.” Id,., bypass majority petitions great in the are filed three
The metropolitan Minnesota, in courts schedule counties where proce- regular place bypass hearings and have on a basis hearing petitions. emergency Id., at 762. Courts for dures nonmetropolitan acquainted with the statute areas are conscientiously, apply part, but a number and, the most it for unwilling judges to hear are who are of counties served bypass petitions. Id., from the unavoidable 763. Aside
26 are physical are of sexual often reluctant “Minors who victims or abuse im abuse outside the home. More to the existence of the to those reveal a substantial risk portantly, government to authorities creates pregnancy her confidentiality decision to terminate that the of minor’s Thus, they are victims sexual will minors choose to declare be lost. few Minnesota, prevalence as physical despite the of such abuse abuse Id., at elsewhere.” 764. have had situations guardians ad litem testified: “We 27 Asone of I by my guardians teenagers that talked to reported me other as well as to they parent, usually myself telling will one who have said that consider mom, dad, anyway, court they go have but since would sometimes know, they parent to they absolutely want the other are sure don’t because Smith). (Testimony they App. either Susanne don’t tell one.” officials, of minors has confidentiality notification of court Ibid. been maintained. 1, 1981, and March between
During period August were filed in Minnesota 1986, 3,573 judicial bypass petitions All who judges adjudi- courts. but 15 were granted.28 testified; none of them iden- cated over 90% of these petitions of the law.29 The court experience tified effects any positive fear, tension, minors, and shame anxiety, among produced 21, supra. n. “ procedure very bypass that minors found the ‘a nerve- One testified 766; experience,’” Finding Supp., F. another racking testified apprehension normally what I that the minor’s “‘level of is twice see ” petitions judge Ibid. A Massachusetts who heard similar in that court.’ ‘absolutely’ opinion “going court traumatic expressed State was very, very ... ‘at a difficult time their lives.’” Ibid. One minors *21 “perceive any public purpose useful what I judge stated that he did not to anything being that doing am in these cases” and that he did not “see Martin, anybody.” accomplished Testimony that to of Gerald C. is useful (CA8), pp. App. in A-488-A-489. No. public guardians gave testimony. litem similar
The defenders ad defender), Testimony Cynthia Daly App. (bypass (public of “was hoop jump through very damaging stress-producing another to and a Testimony procedure good”); (guard- that didn’t do of Susanne Smith (“The id., litem), teenagers guardian’s at 234 that we see in the ian ad nervous, very very of them are office are scared. Some terrified about They They upset processes. court are often exhausted. . . . are about and they they upset explain tell that are about the fact that have to us They very personal strangers. to talk intimate details their lives about ashamed, they feeling they belong system, that in the that are don’t court they being punished that are for the situation embarrassed somehow in”); defender), they Testimony (public App. are of Heather Sweetland (“Most (CA8), p. my that are No. 86-5423 A-585 of the women clients hearings slightly these are scared .... Some of them will relax but the nervous”). majority very of them are case, Hodgson, plaintiffs the that Doctor one of this testified when her patients process, wring- minor returned from the court “some of them are relieved, ing perspiration. They’re markedly many wet with of them. They they procedure dread the court often more than the actual abortion — procedure. necessary frequently give And it—it’s to them a sedative of App. some kind beforehand.” 468.
causing mature, and whose best inter who were some some by “forego abortion, been to the have served ests would notify carry bypass option their and either Supp., Among parents Finding 44, F. at 763. term.” daughters bypass proceedings, supported their the who experience evoked similar reactions.30 the court typically petitions Scheduling in the court re- Minnesota only days hearings. quired wait two or minors to three statutory found, however, the wait- Court District by frequently compounded ing period 48 hours was a num- “commonly” delay a factors that created ber other many delay and, 764-765, “in of a week hours, id., at cases” effecting pregnancy. or more in a decision terminate delay magnitude Id., A of that increased medical 765. procedure statistically with to “a risk the abortion associated Supp., significant degree.” Finding 43, 648 F. at 763. mandatory delay following recognizing that a the no- While protect- interest tice to a minor's served State's ing pregnant minors, court found that that interest could period. waiting Id., at 779-780. be served a shorter At whether the 37 witnesses testified the issue least protecting pregnant statute interest in furthered State’s two-parent Only minors. two witnesses testified noti- good harm; fication did more neither of statute minors than experience these witnesses had direct Minnesota findings Summarizing question on statute. its whether interests, a whole furthered the statute as State’s District wrote: *22 Court spoke remaining witnesses to the issue
“Of the who § Minn. 144.343 whether Stat. effectuates State’s protecting pregnant minors, all but in four of interest trial, parents participated testimony at who in the According to procedure many bypass of whom had never been court —were before — court, id., upset” having appear “angry, “real and were about Id., they they about kid and nervous too.” were worried their were 186. implemen- personally involved the statute’s are
these They judges, public defenders, are in Minnesota. tation guardians litem, and cliniccounselors. None these ad that the statute has a beneficial effect witnesses testified upon affects. testified the law the minors whom it Some [ejffect intra-family upon negligible communication has a process. decision-making upon the minors’ Others has a deleterious effect on the well- testified the statute applies being in- to whom it because it of the minors to the abortion decision the stress attendant creases creating any corresponding benefit. Thus five without produced upon trial have no factual basis which weeks of 144.343(2) (7) § can find that Minn. Stat. on this court — any meaningful way in- the state’s the whole furthers family protecting pregnant assuring or terest in minors integrity.” Id., at 775. statutory requirement
Focusing specifically on notified, the District concluded: both be Court requirement places signifi- finds that this
“The court upon pregnant minors who do not live with cant burden Particularly parents. cases, in these notification of both parent disinterested, has abusive, or even a absent disruptive reintroducing parent’s or un- the effect of family helpful participation into the at a time of acute require- Similarly, two-parent stress. path places significant in the of minors ment obstacle voluntarily parent have with homes who consulted two psycho- parent with the out of fear of one but not other logical, physical sexual, toward either the minor abuse parent. case, In either the alternative of or the notified proceed going without to court to seek authorization to parent notifying introduces a traumatic dis- the second relationship whom the traction into her anxiety option attending either minor has notified. The parent-child com- tends to interfere with and burden the *23 voluntarily initiated with the the cus- munication minor parent. todial seeking judicial Indeed, 20 of minors au-
. . to 25% proceed without with an abortion thorization by parent, accompanied one are to court notification parent. approval of one have obtained the at least notify necessity par- the the either to second these cases agreement despite minor the of both the and the no- ent parent undesirable, or to tified such notification requirement, judicial waiver of the notification obtain a disrupts the minor her and their distracts notify par- need the Thus the second communication. appearance actively amake court ent or to burdensome parent-child interferes communication volun- assertedly tarily child, initiated communication purpose requiring of the State’s notification heart parents. requiring cases, In these notification of of both affirmatively discourages parent-child com- both Id., munication.” at 777-778.
V separate but interest in the Three related interests —the pregnant parents, of the minor, the interest welfare of family unit—are relevant to our con- and the interest constitutionality waiting pe- of 48-hour sideration of two-parent requirement. and the riod legitimate strong has a interest in the wel State immaturity, inexperience, young citizens, fare of its whose judgment may impair ability their lack sometimes rights wisely. II, S., See Bellotti U. exercise their J.); (opinion Massachusetts, Powell, Prince v. 634-639 (1944).31 justifies interest, That which U. S. consistent “pr0perly understood basic with our tradition of individual presuppositions . . . the tradition of the latter. liberty; Legal restrictions parental authority rather, former is one on is not minors, in *24 requirements state-imposed that a obtain his or her minor marrying, undergoing operation, parent’s consent before military entering R., 442 service, see Parham v. J. U. S. (1979); Mo. Parenthood Central v. 603-604 Planned 584, concurring part S., J., in 428 and U. at 95 Danforth, (White, concurring dissenting part); id., J., in at 102-103 (Stevens, dissenting part), part minor’s de- extends also to the pregnancy. Although the Court terminate has cision to her possibly parents may absolute, “an that not exercise held arbitrary, S., decision, over 428 U. at Danforth, veto” judgment challenged never a State’s reasonable 74, it has after to and con- decision should be made that the parent. Re- v. Akron with a Ohio Center sultation See for post, productive Health, 510-511; Akron v. Akron Center at Reproductive Inc., 416, 428, n. 10, 462 U. S. 439 Health, (1983); Matheson, S., II, Bellotti 409-410; H. L. v. 450 U. J.); (opinion S., Powell, Danforth, at 640-641 428 443 U. joined by Stewart, Powell, S., at 75. As Justice Justice U. pointed in his out concurrence Danforth: furthers
“There can doubt the State be little constitutionally by encouraging permissible end an un- pregnant help and minor to seek the advice married important parents making very decision her Id., or not child.” at 91. whether to bear a controlling have an the education and Parents interest upbringing of their but that interest is “a counter- children responsibilities they part Lehr have assumed.” v. (1983); Parham, Robertson, 442 248, 463 U. see also S. 257 (citing Blackstone, *447; at 602 1 W. Commentaries S.,U. role, may important be supportive especially those maturity partici- that make eventual growth for the full child’s chances II, S., rewarding.” society Bellotti 443 U. meaningful and pation in a free J.). Powell, (opinion of at 638-639 (Brennan, (1989) 361, Kentucky, v. 492 U. S. also See Stanford 825-826, Oklahoma, 815, n. J., Thompson v. 487 U. S. 23 dissenting); (1988) opinion). (plurality
446 Pierce v. *190); Law on American Kent, Commentaries J. (1925). Sisters, The fact of bio- 268 U.
Society of S. “an opportu- offers person only logical parentage generally Lehr, with his relationship offspring.” nity develop ... Mohammed, see also Caban v. U. S. S., 262; 463 U. (1979) But the demon- (Stewart, dissenting). assumption to the child through of commitment stration financial, may give or custodial responsibility of personal, in the with the child relationship rising a stake natural Illinois, Stanley liberty level of a interest. to the *25 Lehr, Michael H. v. 261; 463 U. 645, (1972); S., 651 at U. S. (1989) D., J., Gerald 110, 491 157-160 dissent- U. S. (White, Caban, n. 14. But see Michael 393, S., 441 at cf. U. ing); H., S., 491 at 123-127 (plurality opinion). U. has a interest in the creation legitimate
While State Iowa, contract, v. Sosna see marriage and dissolution of Hill, Maynard (1975); 190, 419 v. 125 U. S. 393, U. S. 404 (1888), 205 has a interest family privacy upbringing and the intimacies of the marital and education of children by against which is the Constitution relationship protected Yoder, 406 See Wisconsin v. undue state interference. Connecticut, Griswold 205, (1972); v. 381 U. 233-234 S. Ullman, Poe J., v. S., U. at 495-496 (Goldberg, concurring); (1961) Gilbert 497, (Harlan, J., 367 dissenting); U. S. 551-552 Minnesota, (1920) (Brandeis, J., 325, v. S. 254 U. 335-336 H., see also Michael S., 491 U. at 132 (O’Con dissenting); Roberts v. United States Jay J., concurring part); nor, cees, Bd. Educa (1984); Cleveland 609, 468 U. S. 618-620 LaFleur, tion v. S., family may 414 U. at 639-640. The and the one the children’s education parent guide assign their notion that other to look after health.32 “The statist should governmental supersede parental authority power principles, parent authority agent act as one has Under common-law upbringing for other of their child’s and education. See matters Reeve, (1911); E. Law T. Law Baron Spencer, of Domestic Relations (1816). and Femme 295 neglect all cases some abuse and because children is repugnant Parham, 442 to American tradition.” S.,U. long “private 603. We have held that there exists a realm of family Prince life which the state cannot enter.” v. Massa government chusetts, Thus, S., 321 U. at 166. when the in concerning arrangement trudes on choices of the house carefully “governmental hold, this has examined the Court they interests advanced and the extent to which are served challenged regulation.” Cleveland, Moore v. East (1977) (plurality opinion); 494, id., 431 U. S. concurring); Meyer 510-511 see also v. Ne (Brennan, (1923). braska, 262 U. S. A has natural who demonstrated sufficient commit- ment to his or her children is thereafter entitled to raise the free undue state children from interference. As Justice explained opinion Stanley in his the Court White (1972): Illinois, 405 U. S. frequently importance emphasized “The Court has family. rights to conceive and to raise one’s Meyer ‘essential,’ children have been deemed v. Ne *26 (1923), rights braska, 390, 262 U. S. 399 ‘basic civil of (1942), Oklahoma, man,’ 535, v. Skinner 316 U. S. 541 ‘[r]ights precious property rights,’ far more and . . . than (1953). May Anderson, 528, v. 345 ‘It U. S. 533 is car custody, dinal with us that the and nurture care of the parents, primary child reside first the whose function preparation obligations and freedom include the state supply can neither nor hinder.’ Prince v. Massachu (1944). integrity 158, setts, 321 U. S. 166 family protection unit has found in the Due Process Meyer Amendment, Ne Clause of the Fourteenth v. supra, Equal braska, 399, the Protection Clause of Oklahoma, Amendment, the Fourteenth v. Skinner supra, Amendment, 541, and the Ninth Griswold v. 448 (1965) (Goldberg,
Connecticut, 479, 381 U. S. concurring).” Id., at 651.33
VI clear that a that a minor wait 48 think it is We notifying single parent get intention to of her after hours reasonably legitimate state inter- would further the abortion knowing ensuring that the minor’s and intel- decision est ligent. person parent or another We have held that when a “primary responsibility” for a minor’s well- has assumed may designed properly being, enact “laws to aid the State Ginsberg discharge responsibility.” York, v. New of that (1968). 629, that subdivision 2 To the extent of 390U. S. requires only par- of one the Minnesota statute period provides just waiting that. ent, it does The brief the spouse opportunity parent her the to consult with his or and a inquire family permits physician, it the into the competency performing abortion, the the of doctor discuss implications religious decision, or moral of the abortion the provide daughter guidance and the needed counsel 33“Certainly safeguarding merely not follow the of the home does from sanctity property rights. pre-eminence its The home derives as the family integrity something life. And the that life is so seat of funda protection principles that it been found to draw mental has to its Ullman, explicitly granted right.” Poe v. more than one Constitutional (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting). 367 U. S. Connecticut, contraceptives, Far more than at issue in Poe and Griswold (1965), well-recognized couple the married has a interest in U. S. sanctity protecting by of their from undue communications interference (1839)(“This See, Bowman, g., e. Stein v. State. 13 Pet. rule upon deepest principles of our nature. is founded soundest Princi- relations, ples grown which have out of those domestic constitute the society; enjoyment and which are to the of that basis of civil essential con- which are connected fidence should subsist between those who near- impair great princi- est and dearest relations of life. To break down or wife, ples protect destroy would be to which sanctities husband and *27 existence”); Best, Principles human 2 of Law Evi- the best solace of W. (1st 1876); Greenleaf, Am. ed. 1 Law of Evidence dence 994-995 S. 286-287 1849). (3d (12th 1866); Phillips, ed. 1 M. Law of ed. Evidence evaluating impact the of the decision her on future. See (CA7 1985) Hartigan, (Coffey, Zbaraz 763F. 2d dissenting), by equally Court, aff’d an divided U. S. (1987). delay only imposes The a 48-hour minimal the burden on right of the minor decide whether or not to her terminate Although pregnancy. the District Court found that schedul- ing factors, weather, and the minor’s com- school and work many may delay combine, cases, mitments to create of a longer or week between the initiation of the notification and Supp., abortion, 648 F. there is no evidence that period longer appropri- is 48-hour itself unreasonable than adequate for ate consultation between The child. impose any period delay statute does not once a act- court, ing parentis, express agreement loco or the their procedure that the minor is mature or that be would Appeals Indeed, her best interest. as the Court noted waiting period may reveals,34 and the record concurrently the 48-hour run necessary appoint- with the time to make an procedure, resulting delay.35 ment for the thus little or no telephone 34 Therecord contains the training manual of which one clinic contemplates patient that notification will be made on the date contacts arrange appointment the clinic to an abortion that the so can be scheduled days typically for a few later. Since 1- 2-day backlog, that clinic has a 146-147, App. statutory period waiting delay. creates little Inc., Health, S., Reproductive 35 Akronv. Akron Center U. 449, upon plaintiffs rely, contrary. which the not to is There invali we women, provision required capable consenting dated that mature abortion, giving to an wait 24 hours undergoing after consent before only legitimate abortion. state interest asserted was that “wom Id., woman, an’s decision be informed.” at 450. We decided that “if a appropriate counseling, prepared give after is her written informed con abortion, proceed may delay sent and with the State not demand that she Id., contrast, By the effectuation of that decision." at 450-451. in this case, legitimate the State asserts a in protecting interest minor women text, immaturity. explain from their own right As we pregnancy minor to make an informed decision to terminate her not de waiting period. significant feated the 48-hour It is that the statute *28 VII parents equally that both that the clear It is have to be notified or both wish notified, or not whether be upbringing child, does responsibility the assumed any legitimate The reasonably state interest. further not provi- parental justification consent or notification afor usual pre- authority parent supports a who is that it is sion thereby assures interest and best act the minor’s to sumed pregnancy know- her is to terminate minor’s decision that that intelligent, To the extent such ing, and deliberate. by require- fully legitimate, a be served it would interest parent notify then seek the who can one that the minor ment any party, when such ad- mate or other of his or her counsel necessary help support child make a to is deemed vice family setting, course, no- In the ideal decision. difficult normally parent notice to both. constitute would to either tice two-parent requiring further notification would not A statute many families, how- any instances. interest those state notify by parent not the child would notified ever, the legitimate in- parent. has no the State In those cases other judgment parent’s questioning to the that notice one terest presuming parent the minor or not assist would other incompetent parent duties is assumed who has regarding welfare of the the health and decisions to make child. only two-parent fail to serve
Not does functioning respect families, it dis- interest with state assisting protecting the minor the state interest serves respect dysfunctional The record reveals families. dysfunctional affected families in the thousands of posi- requirement proved two-parent notice statute, the this testimony family. tively and her harmful to the minor competent if decisionmaker— impose waiting period a substitute not does to the abortion. consent parent gives affirmative court — requirement, ostensibly at trial established that this de signed major minor, for the benefit of the resulted in trauma parent child, and often to as well. In some cases, were divorced second did not have *29 custody participate upbringing. in or otherwise the child’s App. id., id,., 244-245; at at In 466; 115. these circum privacy parent stances, the of the violated, and child was they physical psychological even when suffered no other parent harm. instances, however, other the second had child, id., either 462, 464, deserted or abused the at had died tragic id., circumstances, 120-121, under at or was not noti judgment fied because of the considered that notification unnecessary parent would inflict stress on a who was ill. Id., 204, circumstances, at 465.36 In these the statute was merely achieving goals not ineffectual in the State’s but actu ally counterproductive. notifying The focus on the second parent parent distracted both the and minor from minor’s imminent abortion decision. rely primarily does State not on the interests of best defending argues Rather, that, minor in this statute. it family, only
in the ideal the minor should make her decision 36 The notifying parent most common reason for not the second was that 204, parent spouse-batterer, App. was child- or and notification provoked example, Oleisky, would For Allen Judge have further abuse. familiarity having whose with the Minnesota statute is based on his heard id., minors, 1,000 petitions battering over from at testified that Minnesota, frequent parents exemption crime seek an from the noti they fication because have been battered or are afraid of as sault, thing and that notification of the father would the whole off “set Id., id., 237, 245, again in cases.” at 339. some 166-167. also testimony That testimony by is confirmed the uncontradicted of one of plaintiffs’ daughter's absolutely experts pregnancy that notice of a "would enrage cape It like to a showing [a batterer]. would be much a red bull. just plays right That kind of information into his worst fears his most spots. jealousy, daughter going vulnerable The sexual his dislike of his else, anybody very angry probably out with him would would make Id., long create severe abuse as well as term communication difficulties." Walker). (testimony at 194 of Lenore who be naturally should with both parents consultation after that the has an State the child’s welfare concerned right the independent protecting interest believe to be best for they what and strive for “to determine can of these reasons Minn. Br. 26. Neither children.” their The second requirement. two-parent justify minor’s abortion deci- well have interest may all members of a fam- among full communication making sion, communication not cases, may but such some desirable ily has no more interest The State State. decreed be one another than it talk with all members to family requiring In Moore them to live together. certain of has in requiring Cleveland, (1977), we invalidated a zon- v. East U. S. itself,” the family into deeply which “slie[ed] ordinance ing its children— id., “standardiz[e] city permitting narrowly live in certain de- all to by forcing and its adults — *30 Id., the ordinance Although at 506. family patterns.” fined the inter- other than State’s by state interests supported was life the family’s of family its substituting conception est state interests the relation to those view, ordinance’s own By standards. “tenuous” to constitutional satisfy was too its children and standardizing a state interest implication, life” conform to family the realm of adults, making “private a state interest ideal, legitimate is not state-designed some Nebraska, S., 262 U. at 399-400 Meyer also v. at all. See children not be may and bring up to establish home (right which is without “reason- action by legislative interfered within the of the competency to some purpose able relation effect”). to State interest parent’s in protecting
Nor can
state interest
liberty
overcome the
lifestyle
a child’s values and
shaping
of a single parent
with the consent
of a minor acting
interests
I,
II,
(1979); Bellotti
Bellotti
U. S.
or court.
Mo. Planned Parenthood
Central
(1976);
U. S.
of
(1976).
Danforth,
majority
In
the
455 authorizing change the his Tr. minor to name. of that sent is Reply Arg. Brief for Petitioner No. Oral 88-1309, 30, 32; § pro- p. (citing These statutes Stat. 259.10 Minn. (1988)). 5 testimony of the Minnesota to the unreasonableness vide requirement two-parent the ease protect adopt less burdensome means to which the State can Jeter, 486 U. Cf. Clark v. S. the minor’s welfare. 456, 464 Safley, S., at 98. We therefore v. U. (1988); Turner requirement the Constitution. that violates hold this
VIII objection the to the that constitutional The Court holds by- judicial two-parent thé is removed notice option pass provided the stat- in subdivision 6 of Minnesota holding. respectfully I dissent from that ute. previously majority held that statute
A the Court has of requiring parent’s minor’s abortion will be consent to a one procedure provides upheld ‘“alternative if an the State whereby may pregnant is suffi- minor she demonstrate ciently that, herself or make the abortion decision mature immaturity, despite be in her best would her abortion Assn, City, Kansas Parenthood interests.’” Planned of (opinion of Mo., Inc. U. S. (1983) Ashcroft, (opinion O’Connor, Indeed, id., at J.). of Powell, J.); expressed II, the same Members of the Court in Bellotti four parents. requiring opinion of the consent both about a statute (opinion Powell, of J.). S., Neither of 443 U. at today. precedents decision should control our those joined judg- eight II, the Court Members of In Bellotti holding unconstitutional. Massachusetts statute ment bypass judicial set forth hold Thus, did not the Court opposite. just valid; More- it held in that was statute requirements a valid over, the minimum discussion joined by only opinion bypass judicial was Powell’s Justice Indeed, ar- neither the Court. three other Members guments case, opinions parties, in the nor *33 significant the a considered difference between statute re- quiring parents the involvement of both in the abortion deci- merely requires that sion and a statute the involvement of require Thus, one. the doctrine stare decisis does not that opinion ap- standards articulated the Justice Powell’s be plied to a statute mandates the involvement of both parents. judgment II, Bellotti
Unlike sustained the Ashcroft constitutionality judicial containing bypass of the statute a as requirement parent’s an alternative to the of one consent to a The minor’s abortion. distinctions between notice and con- parents just sent between notification of both rather than arguably response argument a one constitute sufficient an resting analysis necessary, on stare decisis. Further is how- require- ever, because, on at least the surface, the consent appear be ment would to more a onerous than mere notice. significance of the distinction between statute re-
quiring parent requiring the consent one and a statute no- parents by relationship tice to both must be tested respective requirements legitimate state interests. We strong legitimate have concluded that State has a in- providing pregnant sup- terest minor with the advice and port parent during period. general of a the decisional A rule requiring parent the minor to obtain the consent of one rea- sonably exception gen- furthers that interest. An from the necessary protect eral rule arbitrary from an minor separate parent veto is motivated concerns rather than the best interest of the child. Cf. Parham v. R., exception S., J. 442 U. at 604-608. But the need for an general does not undermine conclusion that the rule is perfectly just requiring as a rule the consent of reasonable— any procedure surely either for other medical would exception be if emergen- reasonable were made those example, parent might deny cies in lifesaving which, for religious grounds. id., a child on at 602- treatment to 603. already length, requiring set forth at a rule
For reasons reasonably parents is not or notification of both re- consent giving pregnant lated to the state interest minor the parental advice. The State has not called our at- benefit of any of, I aware other medical situation in to, tention nor am provision in which the of treatment Minnesota or elsewhere by, to, been conditioned on notice or consent for a child has just Indeed, the fact that rather than one. both virtually one-parent is the uniform rule for other consent *34 safety, activity health, which affects the minor’s welfare two-parent emphasizes quality aberrant notice requirement. bypass designed exceptions judicial handle
A that is to general thereby preserve rule, and from a reasonable constitutionality quite rule, of that is different from a re- — parents quirement minor and one of her that a minor—or a application permission apply to avoid the to a court for must reasonably legitimate not related to state of a rule that is acting goals. A that a minor the consent apply permission parents to a court for effectuate of both clearly unjustified an official would constitute her decision family. privacy with the of the minor her interference bypass procedure requirement that the must be invoked parent agree parent that the other the minor and one when equally unjustified represents not be notified should family’s process. governmental intrusion into the decisional custody living together joint parents are and have When the legitimate child, interest in the has no over the State father and mother about the child. between communication “[Wjhere divorced, the minor and/or custo- are position court, parent, to de- not a is the best dial notifying would be the non-custodial termine whether Cert, App. Pet. for interests.” in the child’s best panel origi- Appeals p. 88-1125, 69a. As the No. Court “minor and custodial ... vir- concluded, parent, by nally interest and should alone superior position, of their major tue whom, decide to if notice of anyone, opportunity have Ibid, (cita- decision should be given.” minor’s abortion omitted). I with that conclusion. agree tion
[*] [*] [*] of the Court of in its Appeals entirety The judgment affirmed.
It sois ordered. concurring part concurring O’Connor, Justice part. judgment in
I and VIII of Justice Stevens’ III I all but Parts join opin While I with some of the central made in agree points ion. III, I the broader I Part cannot discussion. join agree the Court has characterized woman’s decision to conceive “[a] or to bear a child of her that is component liberty pro [as] tected the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amend Ante, See, e. g., Carey ment to the Constitution.” at 434. International, 685, Services v. Population 431 U. S. Connecticut, Griswold (1977); U. S. (White,
(1965) This Court ex *35 concurring judgment). Baird, minors Bellotti interest in v. liberty tended that 443 (Bellotti II), (1979) and Planned Parenthood 622, 642 U. S. Mo. v. (1976), Danforth, Central 52, 428 74 U. S. albeit with some limitations: notice and important con “[P]arental sent are that be qualifications typically may imposed by on a to make im important State minor’s decisions. As right the ability fully mature minors often lack to make informed choices that take account of both immediate and long-range a State determine that consequences, reasonably may paren tal consultation often is desirable and in the best interest of II, the minor.” Bellotti supra, at 640-641 of Pow (opinion J.); (1981) Matheson, H. L. v. 398, ell, see also 450 U. S. 423 (Stevens, J., Thompson cf. v. concurring judgment); (1988) (“Inexperience, less 815, 835 Oklahoma, 487 U. S. teenager intelligence less able make the education, and less consequences while at or her conduct of his to evaluate the by apt motivated much more to be time he or she the same adult”); pressure v. peer is an than mere emotion or Stanford (1989) Kentucky, J., dissent- 361, 395 492 U. S. (Brennan, (“[Mjinors differently in our ing) from adults treated are simple truth derived from communal laws, which reflects juveniles level of experience, have not the as a class that presume responsibility adults that we maturation and rights participation du- in the for full desirable consider life”). modern ties of par understanding “[i]f my that this area
It has been ‘unduly burde[n]’ regulation the fundamental not does ticular regulation is limited right, of that evaluation . . . then our rationally regulation to a relates that the our determination Re purpose.” v. Akron legitimate Akron Center state (1983) (O’Con productive Inc., 416, 453 Health, 462 U. S. Reproductive Health dissenting); v. J., see also Webster nor, (1989) concurring Services, 492 U. S. (O’Connor, concurring judgment). part that under It is with agree that standing statement I Stevens’ Justice imposes it if the sustained obstacles “statute cannot be legitimate reasonably interests. Cf. state related are not Carey Population S., Safley, 97; Serv at v. 482 U. Turner J.); Powell, (opinion International, S., 431 U. ices (1973).” Ante, 194-195, Bolton, 410 U. S. Doe v. at 436. offered agree has Minnesota with Justice I Stevens family’s justification with the interference for its
no sufficient Minn. decisionmaking processes 2 of subdivision created §144.343 (1988) two-parent notification. Subdivision Stat. — country. stringent in the statute is the most only ante, other that defines n. 5. The State 425. § g., “parents,” 36— *36 generic see, Ann. e. Tenn. Code term statute) ("‘Parents’ (6) 1989)(adoption (Supp. 1-201, Art. Ill ‘parent’”); singular plural of the word see the or either means parents” is ante, 437, Arkansas, 23, n. as “both also exceptions provides to two- numerous the statute that permits bypassing requirement parent notifi- not be the best interests of where notification would cation §§20-16-802, 20-16-804, Ark. Ann. minor. See the Code 1989). (Supp. 20-16-808 exception to notification for who are
The Minnesota minors reality, notifying neglect is, or abuse means of victims points parents. out, ante, at As Justice see the Stevens neglect exception, 7,n. to avail herself of the or abuse 426, report report requires A minor must the wel- the the abuse. agency immediately Minn. fare “conduct assessment.” §626.556(10)(a)(1988). agency If the interviews the Stat. notify parent victim, it interview; must the fact of the subject investigation, right he if the of an has a §§626.656 investigation. to the of access record (“[I]t (10)(c);626.556(11); Arg. see also Tr. of Oral turns reporting requires that the Minnesota that out statute department, reported it’s welfare after welfare de- partment has to do an assessment and tell the about assessment. This could all be done a time frame even occurs”). abused before abortion combination the report physical abuse, sexual minor’s reluctance see invoking n. ante, with the likelihood exception avoiding purpose abuse for the notice result will exception notice, makes the than abuse less effectual. two-parent notice is all the more Minnesota’s only when one half of minors unreasonable considers biologicalparents. in the State of Minnesota reside with both only parent. ante, A one Ibid. at 437. third live sweep purposes its its failure to serve the Given broad many join I cases, the State in the Court’s asserted too striking of subdivision 2.
461 explicitly approved judi cases, II In a of this Court series has tailoring bypass provi cial as a means of a consent unduly burdening right sion so as to avoid the minor’s limited Bellotti v. Baird, obtain an abortion. See 428 U. S. (1976); Parenthood Mo. v. Dan Planned Central (1976); II, S., Bellotti 443 at 642-644 forth, U. S. U. J.). (opinion Powell, the Court stated that Danforth, deficiency “primary [the in constitutional lies imposition statute’s] of an limitation on mi- absolute right materially [A] nor’s obtain an abortion. ... dif- presented ferent constitutional issue would be under a provision requiring parental in consent or consultation (i) providing prompt judicial most cases but for resolu- any disagreement parent tion between the (ii)judicial minor, or determination that the minor is ma- enough give paren- an informed ture consent without in in mi- tal concurrence or that abortion event is provision impose not nor’s best interest. Such would upon parental approval as an the mi- absolute condition right in nor’s but would assure most instances consulta- parent S., tion between the and child.” 428U. at 90-91. passes inter- Subdivision 6 constitutional muster because the family required by operation with internal ference simply not exist where the minor can avoid subdivision does parents by bypass procedure. notifying one or both use Marshall, with whom Brennan and Justice Justice concurring join, concurring part, in in Justice Blackmun part, dissenting part. judgment II, I, IV, I VII concur Parts of Justice Stevens’ Although opinion I No. 88-1309.1 do Court opinion understanding I that the does not concur Part VII on the dispute liberty the interest of the outweighs that a minor’s interest alone permits require that the State to Constitution not believe notify obtaining or consult with a before minor to compare I abortion, ante, infra, 463-472, with agreement the remainder of the rea- in substantial am opinion. soning in V For the Part of Justice Stevens’ *38 Court, ante, 450-455, the at Minnesota’s stated reasons two-parent reasonably is not even notification legitimate Therefore, to a state interest. that re- related surely pass scrutiny appli- quirement would not the strict right fundamental to restrictions on a woman’s to have cable abortion. judgment in 88-1125, I from the of Court No. dissent judicial bypass option however, that the renders delay requirements and 48-hour constitutional. J.); post, (opinion ante, at 461 of at 497-501 See (opinion O’Connor, J.). bypass procedure of cannot Kennedy, requirements bypass those itself is uncon- save because applied. very least, At both on its face and stitutional as substantially right privacy a woman’s this scheme burdens to advancing compelling signifi- a interest. without cantly, state More young usurps
in some it instances a woman’s control body by giving parent her own a or a court the over either effectively power to her to have veto decision an abortion.
I consistently Wade, Roe This Court has since v. 410 held (1973), right privacy U. S. that constitutional enough encompass “is broad to a woman’s decision whether pregnancy.” Id., her at or not terminate 153. We have right repeatedly “[a] that also stated woman’s to make that freely Thornburgh is fundamental.” v. American choice College Gynecologists, 747, and Obstetricians 476 U. S. (1986). Reproductive Accord, Akron v. Akron Centerfor (1983); supra, Inc., Roe, Health, n. 1 U. S. at lifestyles, shaping regardless a and second child’s values ante, parent. interest of first Cf. at 452-453. College Obstetricians in American As we reiterated 155. personal supra, are Gynecologists, “Few more decisions and properly private, or more basic to individ- more intimate, and autonomy, dignity decision—with the than a woman’s ual specified in guidance physician the limits and within of her pregnancy.” Id., 772. at Accord- her end Roe—whether limiting right subjected to the ingly, laws state we have scrutiny, requiring exacting a State show such most compelling narrowly Roe, interest. is drawn to serve law Health, supra, Reproductive supra, 155;Akron Center scrutiny sufficiently pro- judicial Only strict such at 427. intensely personal right de- to make of woman’s tective pregnancy. terminate her whether to cision Repro- land. See Webster the law of the Roe remains (plurality Services, 492 U. (1989) Health S. ductive 490, 521 concurring part J., opinion); id., at (O’CONNOR, concurring judgment); con- id., 537, 560 (Blackmun, today’s part). Indeed, part dissenting curring deci- *39 vitality Roe, of as five Justices have voted reaffirms the sion right restricting have a woman’s to a law down state to strike Accordingly, constitutional, restric- be state to an abortion. rigorous test set forth above. meet the must tions on abortion II disagree strongly that the with the conclusion I Court’s constitutionally may either to a minor woman force State (or only parent2) notify one and cases some both proceeding abortion, or dis with an hours wait 48 before then grant judge ask her to and that he affairs a close her intimate post, (opinion permission at 497-501 have an abortion. J.). (opinion Stevens, ante, of at 448-449 Cf. of Kennedy, J.) notify (finding requiring after to wait hours minor interest). reasonably legitimate parent ing state one furthers only parent one provides notification where one-parent 2 The for statute reasonably through parent “cannot be located living where the second §144.343(31(1988). diligent Minn. effort.” Stat. delay signifi- and First, requirements notification parental choice. right reproductive woman’s cantly young restrict on intuition about the needs and my conclusion not my I base and women, but on a sizable col- impressive of young attitudes the effects of documenting data empirical lection of Second, of an abortion. delaying notification statutes tailored to serve are not narrowly restrictions burdensome the reasons dis- Finally, interest. state any compelling III, infra, does judicial bypass procedure in Part cussed delay requirements. not save notice
A of a woman’s nor the privacy right mag Neither the scope is diminished because a woman is a nitude of a law’s burden (Bellotti Baird, (1979) minor. Bellotti v. 622, U. S. II) J.); Planned Parenthood Central Powell, of (opinion of (1976). Mo. Rather, Danforth, 428 U. S. wom in affects the nature of the State’s minority only an’s status the Court considers the burdens Although terests. on a minor imposes two-parent ante, 450-451, woman’s exercise of her right privacy, n. it that forced notification of recognize only fails to burdens a woman’s young right one also significantly ante, abortion, to have an see (opinion O’Con J.). at 491-497 Cf. post, J.); (opinion Kennedy, nor, J.). ante, at 448-449 (opinion Stevens, A voluntarily substantial minors proportion pregnant consult with a of the existence of notifica- parent regardless e. Eisman, g., See, Torres, Forrest, tion & requirement. *40 and of Fam- Parents: Clinic Policies Adolescents’ Use Telling Per- Services, 12 Family Planning and Abortion ily Planning (1980) (51% of minors discussed 284, 287, 288, spectives or in the absence of a consent parental abortion Minors 15 old or years younger notification requirement). deci- to discuss the abortion likely voluntarily are even more Id., at 290 (69% of such minors vol- sion with their parents. women, For these with parents). abortion untarily discuss a itself does not by impose requirement the notification those women who would But for young burden. significant is evident: The their the burden parents, not to inform choose avoid disclo- their destroys right requirement notification Roe, Cf. Whalen matter. personal sure of deeply (1977). U. S. can have severe physical also
A notification requirement First, forced on a woman. young and effects psychological of both par like forced notification one parent, notification of woman, depend traumatic for extremely young can be ents, Cf. parents. with her relationship of her on the nature ing ante, of a daughter’s n. 36. The disclosure 450-451, and crisis, family often leads to a have an abortion intention to Osof rejection. anger severe characterized Consider Psychosocial Teenage Pregnancy: &sky Osofsky, 1161, 1164-1165 ations, Gynecology Obstetrics Clinical (1978). is espe The impact of physical, psy minors who live fear cially devastating See, e. Minor Women Clary, abuse. g., or sexual chological, in a A of Parental Notification Study Abortions: Obtaining Health Area, 72 American J. of Pub. Metropolitan (1982) not to inform parents minors chose many (finding such as fear of negative consequences voluntarily because retaliation). also Tr. 911 other See physical punishment Benedek) usually minors Dr. Elissa (stating (testimony about daughters’ reaction to news accurately predict parental ante, 438-440, Certainly, n. 25. Cf. pregnancies). two parents. limited to families with child abuse is not causes Second, having notify the prospect of abortions, increas- thereby their delay women to many young Cates, Schulz, & risks of the procedure. the health ing Abortion, 309 with Teenage Risks Associated Grimes, The (1983) that for 621, 623 (finding of Medicine New J. England deaths per the number of old and younger, women 19 years of pregnancy, the first 8 weeks 100,000 was 0.2 for abortions *41 466 through through 13 12, 16, weeks 9 3.4 for weeks
0.6 for after). Matheson, 17 and also H. L. v. for week See 450 7.8 (1981) dissenting). 398, J., 439 S. risks U. (Marshall, delay especially significant posed are this because adoles- already delay seeking relatively medical care until cents late higher. pregnancies, when are See 1 in their risks National Risking Sexuality, Council, the Future: Adolescent Research (C. 1987). Hayes Childbearing Pregnancy, and 114 ed. compels many addition, a notification mi seeking an abortion to travel to a State nors without such a notifying parent. requirement to avoid Cartoof & Kler Impact Parental Consent man, for Abortion: the Massa (1986) 76 Law, 397, American J. of Pub. Health chusetts (finding 399 seeking that one-third of minors abortions traveled of State to avoid outside Massachusetts’ notice may requirement). Other women resort to the horrors of illegal parent. than self-abortion abortion rather tell a (9% supra, Forrest, Torres, tending Eisman, & at 288 at minors family planning they clinics said would have a self- illegal parent); induced or abortion rather then tell a H. L. v. supra, Matheson, 439, and n. 26 dissent (Marshall, Greydanus ing). also Railsback, & Abortion Adoles (1985) cence, Seminars Adolescent Medicine (noting greater 100-times death rate for women who obtain ones).3 illegal legal abortions than for those who obtain Still forgo entirely carry others would an abortion the fetus to (9% supra, Torres, Forrest, term, Eisman, & family planning they carry minors clinics said would fetus Hodgson Dr. 14-year- Jane testified before the District Court that one patient, keep pregnancy private, old order her tried to induce an abor help by inserting object tion with the of her friends a metallic her into va thereby tearing body, cervix, gina, her scarring causing bleeding. her attempt abortion, patient, When that failed to induce an then four or finally pregnant, five months went to an abortion clinic. Because of the cervix, patient’s damage perform to the hysterotomy, doctors had to meaning that that woman must have a section to deliver a Cesarean child App. 462. the future. *42 abort), than inform of decision
to term rather subjecting greater. much health risks of themselves to the psychological, pregnancy physical, and to the and childbirth Grey hardships motherhood. See and financial of unwanted (noting supra, at 214 that minor’s overall Railsback, danus & greater dying than childbirth is over nine times risk of from abortion); Compe legal dying Lewis, Minors’ of from risk Psychologist Abortion, 84, American tence to Consent to (1987) greater psy poses (“[P]regnancy far continuation physical, chological, to the adolescent and economic risks abortion”) (citation omitted). II, also Bellotti than does See J.) (“[CJonsidering (opinion Powell, of her S., 443 U. at 642 probable employment skills, resources, financial education, may maturity, ex unwanted motherhood be and emotional minor”). Clearly, requir ceptionally then, for a burdensome young significantly ing parent a one burdens notification of pregnancy. right woman’s to terminate her B aggravates delay further 48-hour after delay may by pre-notification flow from that harm caused notifying parent. 48-hour Moreover, a a minor’s fear of including delay rights those who minors, of all burdens the parents.4 voluntarily with one or both would consult Jus- delay “imposes assertion that the 48-hour tice Stevens’ post, only ante, at 496 see also burden,” 449; a minimal ignores (opinion health risks the increased of J.), Kennedy, specifi- delay District Court and costs that entails. The this “[djelay any length cally of found as a matter of fact that performing risk of mor- increases the statistical an abortion 1986). (Minn. Supp. tality morbidity.” 756, 648 F. and impact particularly delay can a detrimental Even a brief have pushes trimester, when the into the second if it the abortion substantially risky costly. operation Ibid. more is notes, ante, delay 48-hour and n. As Justice Stevens 35. apply not if a or court consents to abortion. does A Induced Abortion: World Henshaw, & Tietze S. also C. (rate 1986) (6th major pp. com- ed. Review following nearly plications the end doubles the week thereafter). significantly trimester increases first delay the 48-hour Moreover, the District Court found scheduling compounded by as “frequently factors such transportation requirements, weather, minor’s hours, clinic single par- commitments, work and sometimes school family resulting often in an commitments,” and work ent’s delay Supp., 648 F. at 765.5 a week or more. effective delay magnitude, risk The increased caused statistically any point significant at found, is District Court *43 facing Certainly pregnant pregnancy. no woman Ibid. the heightened as would dismiss them risks to her health these “minimal.”6 young ability Although other a woman’s these factors would constrain delay require an the 48-hour
to schedule abortion even in the absence of ment, delay statutory of reduces the wom the addition the immutable both flexibility clinic’s can exacerbate the effect scheduling an’s and the and thus instance, a on Mon might the factors. For a contact clinic of other woman only ap day Tuesday her and find that schedule and clime’sallow for a the delay requirement, pointment for that week. Without the 48-hour however, statutory day; delay, could be treated the with the woman next be wait the woman would forced to a week. delay requirement Stevens 48-hour actu Justice concludes that the statutory period “may run ally delay” in “little results or no because concurrently necessary appointment pro an for the with time to make J.) Ante, (opinion Kennedy, post, at 449. See also at 496 cedure.” (“48-hour delay”); 2d waiting period . . . little no 853 F. results in or 1988)(en banc). (CA8 this Justice bases conclusion on Stevens 2-day testimony of abortion clinic that a 1- or the coadministrator of one Ante, backlog typical. days,” n. 34. “One two scheduling was at however, obviously backlog necessarily means is not 48 hours. that Furthermore, says if that “a woman that she must witness also stated ” day always App. particular policy a is we will see her. be seen on our delay, because of the the clinic cannot honor 147. But mandated 48-hour days elapsed. request for until at least two full have woman’s an abortion justify testimony hardly ignoring the District therefore sufficient to delay requirement. finding regard factual with to the effects Court’s c delay requirements and Because freely right young to decide whether woman’s burden a pregnancy, re- must show that these the State her terminate compelling by justified quirements state interest are closely main interest. The to further are tailored “protect purpose is to of the notification encouraging well-being minors to discuss with of minors preg- their to terminate the decision whether their delay, in is de- turn, Id., The 48-hour nancies” at 766. adequate signed provide parents with time to consult with (opinion daughters. Ante, at 448-449 their Stevens, J.); (opinion post, As Justice at J.). Ste- Kennedy, that the intended to ensure consultation is states, such vens intelligent.” “knowing Ante, 448. decision is minor’s ultimately the State’s interest determine whether I need not privacy outweighs young be- interests, however, women’s closely tailored to further are not the strictures here cause goal. asserted the State’s voluntarily many young consult would women who
For the supra, having 464- see abortion, before superfluous, delay requirements are 466, the notification require- interest. The the State’s and so do not advance *44 only otherwise who would not those women ments affect unlikely compelled re- notify parent. to notification is But a daughter productive in in families which in consultation sult consulting inti- her about comfortable does not feel Legal Regulation Melton, matters. See mate or sexual Psy- 42 Effects, American Abortion: Unintended Adolescent (1987) many (stating families, com- chologist that 79, unlikely meaningful pelled parental result in is to notification predicament); daughter’s Tr. 1357-1358 about the discussion Butzer) involuntary (stating (testimony that of Dr. Steven universally family disruptive and has “almost disclosure is expectations). negative” effects, with minor’s in accord history abuse, a of child with Moreover, those families likely notify parent be is pregnant more minor forced to psychological by physical than harassment greeted assault predicament. caring her See open about conversation Walker) (stating (testimony that forced Dr. Lenore Tr. 316 likely dysfunctional is com- families to sever notification violence); patterns H. L. the risk of and increase munication dissenting). Matheson, 460 S.,U. (Marshall, pun- would amount to in such situations notification Forced daughter ishing lack of a stable and communi- for the family the blame for that situation environment, when cative entirely, parents. principally, Parental if not lies family, not therefore, would the less-than-ideal by minor.7 to an informed decision lead the statute serves the interest also claims that The State right shape the[ir] parents’ independent protecting “to style[s]” child[ren]’s and “to determine and values and life they to be best for their children.” for what believe strive p. 88-1309, so, 26. If this is Petitioners in No. Brief for paren- surely require it inclusive, as does not under statute for minor seeks medical treatment where the tal notification drug pregnancy, or alcoholand other abuse. disease, venereal (1988). §144.343(1) Are we to believe Minn. Stat. See permit parents provide requirements also asserts that the The State history daughters’ their about medical with relevant information doctors are fol proper procedures after-care ensuring assist with and “to ante, 1309, pp. 34-36. also in No. Brief for Petitioners lowed.” 88— J.) “permits inquire Stevens, (delay period parent to (opinion abortion”). performing the If these are competency of the doctor into interests, try that the to facili peculiar State does not state it seems actual pregnancy in minors’ treatment similar involvement tate childbirth, pose greater far the minor’s page, which risks to see this infra event, compelled noti abortion, supra, at 466-467. than see health fam helpful parental involvement in those unlikely fication is to result *45 parent daughter’s predicament the news of the reacts to ilies which supra page. abusing young woman. See this rejecting or parents well- their children’s no interest have Minnesota being in these other contexts? up right parents’ their children’s to direct event, family right against mat
bringing interference with state is a g., Massachusetts, 158, 166 321U. S. Prince v. See, e. ters. (1944) respected (noting “have decisions that this Court’s enter”). family cannot private the state life which realm (1972); Yoder, 406 U. S. v. also Wisconsin See (1925). Society Sisters, 510, 534-535 268 U. S. Pierce affirmatively requirements ironically, here the State’s Yet, by trying family force families to conform life interfere family. archetype Moore v. Cf. of the ideal to the State’s (1977)(plurality opinion) Cleveland, 431 U. S. East standardizing (“[T]he State] prevents [the from Constitution by forcing all to live certain its its children—and adults — narrowly family patterns”); It is a ante, at 452. defined alchemy a limita strange would transform constitutional governmental justification in power state into tion on practical family as a Moreover, interactions. trusion into likely pa hardly to resurrect is matter, “state intervention authority are unable themselves that the rental supra, at 448 preserve.” Matheson, H. L. v. (Marshall, dissenting). Planned Parenthood Central also unlikely parental (finding veto it at 75 Mo., S., 428 U. authority parental or con power “will enhance abortion over nonconsenting are so minor and the trol where very preg fundamentally existence of the and the in conflict structure”). family already nancy fractured the has merely the construed as interest is if State’s Even authority, parental the notifi- exercise facilitation narrowly Pa- delay requirements drawn. are not cation and Certainly authority where not limitless. rental parent’s child, the author- harm the threatens involvement Massachusetts, supra, 169-170; yield. ity Prince v. must Matheson, supra, J., dissent- H. L. v. (Marshall, delay requirements facili- ing). Yet the notification *46 parental authority may tate exercise of it even where physically psychologically supra, or harm the child. See at 470. parental authority
Furthermore, the exercise some in- obstructing will stances take the form of the minor’s decision objects an have A to abortion. who abortion, to the pressure strong notified, once can exert on the minor—in the disapproval, support, form of stern withdrawal of financial or physical getting or emotional abuse—to block from her an (opinion II, abortion. See Bellotti U. S., at 647 J.) (“[M]any parents strong Powell, hold views on the sub- ject young pregnant especially abortion, minors, those living particularly parents’ home, are vulnerable to their abortion”). efforts to obstruct ... an L. See also H. dissenting). Matheson, S., at 438-439 (Marshall, U. requirement such circumstances, the notification becomes, requirement. effect, a consent As discussed below, infra, may permit any person, par- including State not veto a pregnancy. ent, to woman’s decision terminate her delay requirements effectively Because the notification and give parents opportunity to exercise an unconstitutional requirements narrowly veto in some situations, those are not - facilitating legitimate tailored State’s interest parental authority. exercises of
( I—I*— delay requirements, The notification and 48-hour satisfy scrutiny applicable not then, do the strict to laws re- stricting right a woman’s constitutional have an abortion. judicial bypass procedure salvage require- cannot those procedure ments because itself is unconstitutional.
A argues bypass procedure The State that the saves the noti- delay requirements provides fication and because it alter- an way legal native to obtain a abortion for minors who would requirements. upheld be harmed those This Court has one-parent provided consent where the State judicial procedure “‘whereby pregnant alternative minor [could] [was] sufficiently demonstrate that she mature to make the despite abortion decision herself that, her immaturity, an abortion would be her best interests.’” City, Planned Parenthood Assn. Kansas Mo., Inc. v. (1983) J.) (opinion Ashcroft, 462 U. S. of Powell, *47 (quoting Reproductive Akron Center Health, 462 S.,U. for 439-440). at
I judicial bypass continue to pro believe, however, a cedure of this sort is itself unconstitutional because it effec tively gives judge a “an absolute veto over the decision of the physician patient.” and his Planned Parenthood Assn. of City, supra, Kansas concurring at 504 (Blackmun, J., part dissenting part); II, see also Bellotti S.,U. at (“The concurring judgment) provision (Stevens, judge an particularly absolute veto to a ... is me trou bling. right ... It is inherent in the to make the abortion de right may public cisionthat the scrutiny be exercised without contrary opinion and in sovereign defiance of the (footnote parties”) omitted); other third Planned Parenthood (“[T]he supra, Mo., Central at 74 State does not have the authority give party constitutional a third an absolute, possibly arbitrary, physician veto over the decision of patient patient’s pregnancy, regardless his to terminate the consent”). withholding person may of the reason for No phy veto minor’s decision, made in consultation with her pregnancy. sician, to terminate her An “immature” minor right regarding body has no less to make decisions her own than a mature adult. bypass provision judge
Minnesota’s a allows to authorize an if abortion he either that determines a woman is suffi- ciently mature to make the decision on her or, own if she sufficiently mature, paren- is not that an abortion without tal notification would serve her best interests. Minn. Stat. 144.343(6)(1988). § judge if course, Of refuses to authorize young she can then reevaluate whether abortion, a woman carry many notify parent. But women will wants notify parent. swpra, to term rather than fetus may to inform a but decide Other women 466-467. parental pressure as to ob- or abuse so severe confront then judge’s refusal to women, these the abortion. For struct effectively constitutes an absolute veto. an abortion authorize any provision allowing constitutional defects The exacer abortion decision are to veto a woman’s someone vagueness the standards contained this bated guidance judge gives on how a is The statute no statute. sufficiently minor is “mature” and whether a to determine “capable” on her own. See Minn. Stat. to make the decision 144.343(6)(c)(i)(1988) (judge § if he shall authorize abortion capable pregnant woman is mature and that the “determines abortion”). proposed giving to the Cf. informed consent (noting Psychologist, the ab Lewis, American judicial assessing maturity). of a standard sence similarly judge as to how a is to determine statute silent *48 parental would an abortion without notification whether 144.343(6) § an immature minor’s “best interests.” serve (c)(i) (judge minor shall authorize abortion for immature preg judge notification “if said concludes that without thereby”). nant woman’s best interests would be served Is judge expected to know more about the woman’smedical psychological makeup than needs or her doctor? Should he and consider the woman’s financial emotional1 status to quality of life the woman her determine future enjoy would in this world? Neither the record nor the child questions. As answers such Court wrote Justice Stevens “provides II, Bellotti interest standard little real the best necessarily judge, guidance his to the decision must re personal values and flect and societal mores whose enforce upon particularly contrary when to her own ment minor— fundamentally decision—is informed and reasonable at odds privacy underlying protec- the constitutional interests with (opinion tion afforded to her decision.” atS., 443U. 655-656 concurring judgment). It is difficult conceive of judge’s personal opposition reason, aside from a to abortion, justify finding that would immature an woman’s best by forcing pregnancy interests would be served her to endure against and childbirth her will.
B judicial bypass procedure I Even if did not believe that a facially experience was unconstitutional, the of Minnesota’s procedure operation bypass pro that the demonstrates vision us before cannot save the delay requirements. judicial by This Court has addressed pass procedures only challenges. in the facial context of City, Assn. Planned Parenthood Kansas 462 U. S., at (opinion J.); Reproduc Powell, 490-493 Akron Center for Health, tive atS., II, U. Bellotti U. 439-442; S., J.). (opinion Powell, Court has con never particular bypass provision sidered the actual burdens im poses right aon woman’s to choose an abortion. con Such judges every that, sideration establishes even if authorized sought by judicial, petitioning abortion minors, Minnesota’s bypass remedy far too burdensome otherwise uncon stitutional statute. bypass procedure
The District Court found that im- posed significant “scheduling First, burdens on minors. practices require typically in Minnesota courts minors wait days two or three contact between their first with the court hearing petitions. delay may and on their This combine delay other factors to result of a week or more.” Supp., supra, *49 above, 467-468, F. at 763. As noted delay only days significantly of a few can health increase week-long inevitably delay risks minor; to the does. Fur- judge thermore, Minnesota, several counties in no is will- ing bypass petitions, forcing to hear those areas to women Supp., long hearing. travel distances obtain a 648 F. How Minors Fare When 763; Donovan, Judging Teenagers: Abortions, Family Seek Court-Authorized They Planning (1983) (50% Minnesota minors utiliz- Perspectives were not residents of in which court was lo- bypass city ing (“In Melton, 42 American at 80 cated); Psychologist, Minne- in rural often sota, where counties have recused judges mi- hearings, themselves from the abortion participation more nors sometimes have to travel a than 500 round-trip travel, for the The such often re- hearing”). miles burden of overnight stay city, an a distant quiring particularly Furthermore, women from rural areas. heavy poor from or work home, school, woman’s absence young during the time for such travel and for the itself required hearing ibid. confidentiality. can the woman’s jeopardize also found that the bypass procedure District Court can be traumatic for women. extremely young
“The to court for a author- going judicial experience minors. many ization fear and tension Mi- produces nors are about the apprehensive prospect facing who holds in hands the authority figure power his to proceed notifying veto their decision without one or Many both minors are and resentful at parents. angry to justify their decision before being required complete strangers. Despite confidentiality proceed- minors resent intimate ing, many to reveal de- having tails of their lives to these personal family strangers. minors are left Finally, many ashamed feeling guilty about their and their to terminate their lifestyle decision Some mature minors and some minors in pregnancy. it whose best interests is to without proceed notifying their are so daunted parents judicial proceeding and either their they forego bypass notify option term. carry minors are so upset by bypass proceeding
“Some it the medical consider more difficult than they pro- itself. Indeed the from the anxiety resulting by- cedure *50 may pass linger proceeding until the medical time of the procedure and thus render the more than latter difficult necessary.” Supp., 648 F. at 763-764.8 despite imposed by pro- Yet, the substantial burdens these ceedings, bypass stamp,” id., is, effect, “rubber at (testimony Sweeney); extremely only of William Hon. petitions small id., number of are at denied, 765. See also (“Available supra, judi- Melton, at 80 research indicates that bypass merely Although proceedings pro cial are forma. they represent privacy substantial intrusion on minors’ and significant up take time, amounts of court there is no evi- they promote decisionmaking dence that more reasoned or may particularly screen out who be adolescents immature hearings typically . . . min- vulnerable. The last less than 15 Despite complex (maturity . utes. . . issues involved minor), experts rarely the best interests of the if are ever testify”). judges adjudicated called to have who over bypass petitions 90% of the between 1981and 1986could not identify any positive procedure. bypass effects of the Supp., large ante, 648 F. at 766; 441-442, and n. 29. The undergo bypass process of number women not re- who do counseling ceive sort of from the court—which is not sur- prising, given expertise the court’s limited role and lack of process bypass that area. The thus itself cannot serve promoting decisionmaking state interest of informed all truly ensuring If minors. the State were concerned about Hodgson procedure Dr. some so testified that minors dread court they “wringing frequently much that perspiration” become wet with require App. judge a sedative beforehand. 468. heard a One who has significant bypass petitions number of experience testified that the court is “‘very nervewracking’” young Supp., women. F. 766. An for “ other pregnant apprehension testified that minors’ ‘level twice what I normally see in typical things you court. ... You see all the would stress, somebody see answering mono under incredible amounts of hands, voice, voice, syllabically, shaky, you tone of wringing tenor know, young lady turning one her —her it was had hands were blue and my office.’” Ibid. warm in knowledgeable caring minors consult with all counseling provide rather form it would some *51 adult, judge merely gives procedure judicial or in which a afor than his consent.9 withholds validity regardless of a view of the facial of one’s
Thus, practice imposes procedure procedure, bypass Minnesota’s right young choose an women’s burden on excessive an J., at 655 II, S., 443 U. Cf. Bellotti abortion. concurring (Stevens, (“[T]he judicial judgment) need to commence impose legal proceedings abortion would in order to obtain a greater great probably than, that as, least as a burden by consent imposed need to obtain the the minor child on process parent”). does not serve Furthermore, aof ensuring in- minors’ are that decisions interest of State’s Surely, require not that all a could then, State formed. judicial approval.10 seeking obtain an abortion minor women bypass procedure holding that the burdensome The Court’s delay require- burdensome notification the State’s saves of a Maine, example, requires a minor obtain the consent or member; undergo judicial bypass; a family or parent, guardian, adult speci according a counselor counseling physician from the or receive 1989). 22, § Ann., (Supp. 1597-A Me. Tit. criteria. See Rev. Stat. fied encourage parental providers to requires abortion Wisconsin notifying valid reason for not they that the minor has a unless determine (1987-1988). situation, In § the latter parents. Wis. Stat. 146.78 her notify require minor to “another encourage not provider must —the —but counselor, member, friend, social worker or family family close school 146.78(5)(c). express opinion § I no on the appropriate person.” other schemes, only constitutionality efficacy but raise them as exam of these judicial bypass closely related than a ples more of alternatives seem minor’s decision is informed. goal ensuring that the procedure to event, already provide counseling. extensive most abortion clinics Council, Risking the Future: Adolescent Sexual- 1 National Research See 1987) (90% (C. Hayes Childbearing ed. ity, Pregnancy, patients, counseling for all first-abortion routinely provide abortion clinics patients request). to all on counseling clinics make available and all Eighth Cir 10 Indeed, argument in oral before the State conceded cuit, banc, judicial approval provision itself would be sitting en that a 2d, (Lay, dissenting). 853 F. at 1469 C. unconstitutional. equivalent saying that two as the thus strikes me merits wrongs judicial accept right. a novel I such cannot make calculus.
1—1 <1 today majority strikes down an unreason- A of the Court pregnant vastly minor that a able and overbroad parents notify abortion. decision to obtain an of her both her though, agree. time, a dif- At the same I With that decision may require young majority a State holds that ferent notify and then wait both to' one or even woman long pro- having as the State abortion, as hours before judicial bypass procedure. I ve- From that decision vides hemently young in an forces a woman This scheme
dissent. fundamentally already between two *52 situation to choose dire possibly notifying unacceptable dictatorial alternatives: personal profoundly parent justifying her and even abusive proceeding intimidating judicial ato black- in an decision stranger. is more woman, this dilemma For such a robed likely pain in and than an informed in trauma and
to result voluntary decision. in and in the judgment part Scalia, concurring
Justice in dissenting part. today: opinions One Justice I the various
As understand (at two-parent least is unconstitutional notification holds circumstances) judicial bypass, but present without in the bypass, (O’Connor, J., ante, at 459-461 with constitutional concurring concurring judgment part); part in four in in and two-parent notification is constitu- hold that Justices would post, bypass, at 488-497 without (Kennedy, tional with or part); part dissenting judgment concurring in J., in and in two-parent is un- would hold four Justices bypass, though apply the four with or without constitutional (opinion ante, at 455-458 of Ste- standards, two different concurring J.), in ante, J., at 472-479 (Marshall, vens, dissenting part); part concurring judgment in part, in in bypass one-parent is notification with hold that six Justices though reasons, Ohio for two different sets constitutional, post, Reproductive Health, 510-517; at Center Akron concurring part post, in and concur- J., 522-524 (Stevens, judgment); ring that one- three would hold in Justices post, bypass unconstitutional, notification with dissenting). in vain One will search (Blackmun, construing supposed to be for text that we are the document provides argument distinctions; these the basis for the over society’s regarding tradition abortion no find our and will constitutionally relevant, are much hint that the distinctions argument them indication a constitutional about less how unpredictable ought The random and results to be resolved. consequently it in- unchanneled individual views make of our creasingly Term, after that the tools for this evident, Term lawyer’s job not in the are not to be found the hence —and judge’s I continue to dissent from this enter- —workbox. devising prise illusion that Code, an Abortion and from the authority have to do so. we whom The Chief Justice, Jus- Kennedy,
Justice join, concurring in and Justice alia White, tice Sc judgment part dissenting part. a con
“‘There can be little doubt that the State furthers stitutionally permissible encouraging end an unmarried help pregnant minor and advice of her to seek making very important to bear a decision whether or not *53 years, grave girl decision, child. That is a and a of tender may ill-equipped to make it with stress, under emotional be support.’” Bellotti v. out mature advice and emotional (1979) (Bellotti II), (opinion 622, Baird 443 U. S. 640-641 of J.) (quoting Mo. Powell, Planned Parenthood Central of (1976) (Stewart, concurring)); J., Danforth, U. S. (1981); Matheson, also H. L. v. 450 U. S. 409-411 see concurring judgment); J., in Dan id., at (Stevens, supra, concurring part in (White, J., at 94-95 and dis forth, concurring senting part); at 102-103 id., (Stevens, a the Court holds that Today, part dissenting part). both that she notify minor to requiring statute a fur- a means of permissible to have an abortion is not plans in Bellotti such described with specificity interest thering will come as II. surprise This no doubt a conclusion, which our constitutional tradi- is incompatible to most parents, of review of legislative notion any acceptable judicial tion and judg- I dissent from the Court’s portion enactments. conclusion that the Min- ment the Court of affirming Appeals’ is unconstitutional. notice statute two-parent nesota if the however, provides, The Minnesota statute also the same notice invalidated, is notice two-parent requirement minor obtains pregnant is effective unless the requirement Minn. Stat. proceed. court order the abortion permitting 144.343(6) (1988). sustained this Appeals por- § The Court of notice statute, two-parent tion of the effect Court, the four Five Members bypass. with judicial with the agree this and Justice join opinion who O’Connor, As on this of the statute. aspect decision Appeals’ Court from this part who dissents by announced Stevens, Justice on judgment the Court decision, Appeals’ of the Court’s affirmed. this of the statute is therefore portion H-l us are straightfor- the statute before provisions that before a physi- statute essence, provides ward. on an uneman- an abortion may cian Minnesota perform must physician’s agent or minor, physician cipated if each one can be located both of the minor’s notify parents, certified or effort, personally reasonable either through the abortion is performed. before mail at least hours (1988). 144.343(2)-(3) Notification is not re- §§ Minn. Stat. the minor’s necessary prevent if the abortion quired abortion; to the or if have consented death; or both parents abuse, is the victim of sexual if the minor declares that she 144.343(4). § Failure to comply abuse. physical neglect, *54 requirements a and the statute misdemeanor, is these with physician against noncomplying civil the action authorizes 144.343(5). § parents. by the minor’s enjoins provides if court the that, notice statute also The parental 2, the sub- of notice under subdivision required, the minor obtains a still unless shall be division dispensing statute, it. the the court with Under court order physician perform required the to the abortion to authorize is parental the if court determines that notice without capable giving consent to “mature informed minor is and performance proposed of an abor- abortion” or that “the parents, guardian, upon of her her without notification tion 144.343(6). § in her best interests.” or conservator would be r—I h-H served law. The identifies two interests The State pregnant minors. first is the State’s interest the welfare acknowledging pro- and is the interest second State’s moting parents upbringing role of of their the care writing for two Members children. Stevens, Justice acknowledges legitimacy interest, first Court, illegitimate, but decides the second interest somehow notify. parent minor at least as to whichever chooses not prevents agree I cannot that the Constitution a State from keeping both informed of medical condition their child under the terms and condi- medical treatment of tions of this statute. always
The welfare of the child has been the central con give regard to minors. The not cern of laws law does many gen rights given provides, in adults, children rights only they exercise the do have eral, that children can through R., and with consent. Parham v. J. (1979)(Stewart, concurring judgment). U. S. Legislatures historically quali have acted on the basis maturity adults, between children tative differences (1984);Thomp- 467 U. Martin, see S. Schall
483 (1988) son v. Oklahoma, 815, 487 U. S. 853-854 (O’Connor, concurring judgment) cases); (collecting J., in Stanford (1989) Kentucky, 361, 492 U. 384 J., S. dissent- (Brennan, ing), Age rough and not reason. without but fair approximation maturity judgment, and of and a State has an seeing in interest a child, when confronted with serious pregnancy, decisions such as or not to whether abort has parents making any- the assistance of her If choice. thing previous dealing parental is settled our cases with point. laws, notification and it is II, consent this See Bellotti (opinion J.); 443 S., Powell, U. at of Matheson, 640-641 450 concurring S., id., U. at 422-423 409-411; (Stevens, judgment). right parent participate of
Protection of the each in the upbringing of his own her or children is a further discrete in- recognizes by terest that the State the statute. The com- historically given recognition right mon law has to the of parents, merely not to be notified of their children’s actions, speak showing but to and act on their behalf. Absent a of neglect “possessed paramount right father abuse, a custody superin- of his minor children, and control and to tend their and nurture.” Schouler, education J. Law of (3d. 1882); Domestic 337 ed. 1 Relations see also W. Black- stone, *452-*453; Kent, Commentaries J. Commentaries on Legal American *203-*206; Field, Law G. Relations of In- (1888). century, fants this the common law of most parental rights States has the idea abandoned are vested solely being merely with mothers fathers, viewed as agents husbands, of their cf. ante, 32; n. it is now the parental rights parental case that each has responsibilities, W. Keeton, Dobbs, Keeton, see D. R. & D. § Owen, Keeton on Torts, 4, 18, Prosser and Law of ch. (5th 1984). p. emerged pre- ed. Limitations have on the rogatives parents contrary act best to the interests of respect compulsory the child with to matters such as school- ing general however, As a matter, child labor. it re- custody, care “cardinal us that the and nurture mains parents, primary whose child reside first function obligations preparation for can freedom include the state supply Prince v. Massachusetts, nor hinder.” neither (1944). history “The and culture of Western U. S. strong reflect a concern for civilization tradition upbringing primary nurture and of their children. This upbringing of their children is now role *56 enduring beyond as debate an American tradi- established (1972); 205, 232 Yoder, Wisconsin v. 406 U. S. see tion.” (1925). Society 510, Pierce 268 U. S. Sisters, also v. 535 of pursues legitimate A State end under a Constitution parent-child attempts preserve the it to foster and rela- when tionship by giving parents opportunity participate to all care We in the and nurture of their children. have held that liberty protected parents have a interest, the Constitu- having opportunity develop tion, a to reasonable closerela- Santosky with v. Kramer, tions their children. See 455 (1982); 745, S. 753-754 Caban v. 441 S. Mohammed, U. U. (1972). (1979);Stanley Illinois, 645, 380 405 U. S. v. 651-652 recognized, have that there are course, We of limits to the custody right parents par- constitutional to have to of, affecting, ticipate If children. decisions their a has relinquished opportunity develop relationship a to only biological, child, link the child and his or her require parental the Constitution does not a State to allow participation. Robertson, Lehr v. 463 U. 248, See S. 261- (1983); Quilloin 434 U. S. Walcott, (1978). protect does But the fact that Constitution not parent-child relationship in all circumstances does not attempt parental partici- mean that the cannot to foster State pation where the Constitution not demand does that it do so. may protect parent-child A seek facilitate the State and assumption parents on the act in bond that will their child’s supra, R., 602-603; interests. Parham v. J. best at (1968). Ginsberg York, Indeed, v. New U. S. rights cannot terminate held that State we have parents is unfit upon presumption class based parents opportunity to rebut affording an individual without Santosky, Stanley, supra, 654-658; presumption. See (“The liberty of natural supra, interest fundamental at 753 management custody, of their child parents care, in the they simply been model evaporate have not because does not legislate broad as- parents on the cannot If a State undeserving sumption are unfit that classes affording opportunity to rebut parental rights without legislate permissible assumption, for a State it is at least general interested premise parents, rule, are as a on the with it. in accord and will act in their welfare children’s case descriptions this interests of the State’s The Court’s insti- most revered and of our the law caricatures, are both of ones “stan- as these interests labels tutions. The Court ensuring that each dardizing adults,” and its children possible, state- family, to some “conform to the extent designed ante, at 452; see also Ante, ideal.” (Mar- *57 judgment concurring in concurring part, in in shall, “trying (accusing dissenting part) part, Minnesota of in archetype to the State’s to conform to force families by purpose, ex- family”). asserts no such Minnesota ideal by any permissible All that plicit inference. or statement parents seeing know that interest in is an Minnesota asserts facing is interest That their child. about a vital decision living regard child is to whether the a valid one without parents, be- to the attachment or either or both with one family responds to parents. unit How the tween the minor’s beyond part, control. the State’s the most is, such notice being prefer parents, after all no doubt The State would daughters and would contact their statute, notified under the making best the child’s decisions with their assist them contrary to the Court’s not, it has heart; but interests at What communication, it. nor could “decreed” intimation, do is possible can make the communication the State intentions. informing parents daughter’s of their least upon has act common- Minnesota done no more than daughter deciding their that, proposition assisting sense can best fulfill their abortion, to have an parents whether have about their own if the same information they roles choices as the child’s medical condition and medical child’s this is to does; deny knowledge parents doctor or alienation from the child risk, perpetuate, estrangement guidance need of greatest parental she when and our State, The Court does the constitutional support. of these tradition, legitimacy sad disservice by impugning objectives. elemental societal that underlies notice
Given the interest that most States laws, surprise and consent it comes as no that, general, enacted statutes physician have requiring least one of her or obtain the of at notify par- must consent an abortion on a ents or before legal guardian performing Webster Reproduc- Wardle, minor. See “Time Enough”: Services Pace tive Health Justice, Prudent and the statutes). (1989) Rev. Five 881, (collecting Fla. L. 963-965 as a States, including Minnesota, require, general appear a physician the notification of both before rule, may §§ abortion on a Ark. Code Ann. 20- minor. See perform § Idaho Code 18-610 1989); 20-16-808 through (Supp. 39-15-202(f) (6) 1989); § Tenn. Code Ann. Utah (1987); (Supp. (1990). §76-7-304 six States Ann. Another appear Code the consent both varying exceptions, par- require, 1790(b)(3) (1987); § Del. Tit. Ill. Ann., ents. Code ¶81-54(3) ch. Rev. Stat. Ann. Stat., (1989); Ky. Rev. (Michie §112:12S §311.732 Laws 1990); (1988); Mass. Gen. N. D. 1989); § Ann. Cent. Code Miss. Code. 41-41-53 (Supp. *58 (1981). §14-02.1-03.1 statutes are more or Whether these than is not the issue, less restrictive the Minnesota statute I to note that because Court’s decision although pause its the law’s requirements, turns today upon perception “stringent” exceptions, in the coun- despite most are the its part concurring in and try, ante, at 459 see (O’Connor, import concurring judgment), has no Court’s decision the. important is validity isWhat other statutes. for the of these vitality acknowledging alone that Minnesota is not adopting in the that, laws governmental and interests these serving judgment, them while legislature’s suited to are best protecting welfare. the minor’s among state general trend the current level, a more
On custody making joint it the norm legislatures laws enact is to respon- legal separated to share the for divorced or concerning making authority their sibility decisions and religion, and medical treatment. education, care, children’s Relations the United of Domestic Clark, H. Law (2d Custody 1987);Folberg, §20.5 Law—The Joint ed. States (collect- (1984-1985) Family 1,L. Wave, 23 J. Second statutes). example, there ex- ing law, for Minnesota Under custody, joint proceedings presumption in divorce ists a parents, inter- in the best requested or both if either 1989). §518.17(2) (Supp. Minn. Stat. ests of the child. See provides custody joint Minnesota law awarded, if is not Even specifically parent, directs other- the court that each unless protect child, “has or the the welfare wise to copies medical, school, right of, to receive to, of access important training, religious records and other dental, responsibility children”; minor about the information party and address of “keep as to the name informed the other respon- children”; minor attendance school of [an party “notify sibility accident or serious other pro- the health care and the name of child], of a minor illness right place to reason- treatment”; and “the vider and telephone minor children.” with the contact able access 518.17(3)(1988). two-parent § noti- Minnesota’s Minn. Stat. principles apply general than these more law does no fication specific of abortion. case to the *59 regulating law contains similar provisions
Federal the notification or require and welfare of children that health both one condition for ob- example, of For parents. consent Life is that Family under the Adolescent Act grant taining that it must assurances will “notify applicant provide minor unemancipated requesting or guardians parents from the and [relating family planning] applicant services parents obtain the of such or permission guardians . . . will to the of such services.” U. S. C. respect provision 300z-5(a)(22)(A)(ii) (re- 300z-5(a)(22)(A)(i) (1982 § see ed.); § notice if the only guardians or uneman- parents quiring 5671(d) § minor is also U. See S. C. pregnant). cipated V) (1982 for certain ed., funding Supp. (authorizing experi- alcohol treatment if juvenile mental and safe- drug programs are established for informed consent of obtaining guards or minors); U. S. C. “parents guardians” App. §454(c)(4) (1982 ed.) induction of a 17-year-old (permitting Armed consent into the Forces with the written of his “par- (1989) § 45 CFR 46.408 consent guardian”); (requiring ents in before a minor medical re- may participate of both harm). more than a “minimal” risk of With all posing search I errs today submit the Court when it states that respect, is an Minnesota’s notice law state two-parent “oddity among Ante, at and federal consent 454. provisions.” r-H I—I HH concede, At least two must, Members of the Court as they in has a interest State welfare of the legitimate minor in that, interest, furtherance this pregnant and consult may require notify, with, the minor to one State ante, 444-446 at (opinion of her parents. Stevens, ante, at 469 in J., cf. con- J.); concurring part, (Marshall, in in curring judgment part, dissenting part). The nonetheless holds the Minnesota statute unconstitu- Court it to notify the minor not one requires parent, tional because both Court bears parents, says but no reasonable relation to the minor’s welfare. See ante, concurring 450-455; ante, cf. (Marshall, part, concurring judgment part, dissenting part). *60 The Court also concludes that Minnesota not does le- have a gitimate facilitating participation par- interest of both upbringing and ents the care of their children. Given the protection substantial generally, that minors have under Minnesota law question, judicial by-
and under the statute in pass provisions necessary validity. of the law are not to its two-parent by notification law enacted Minnesota is, my judicial bypass provision view, valid without the of subdi- vision 6.
A ground We have over been much of this before. It is be- yond dispute many parents that families, whether the are living together apart, parents or notice to both serves the parents minor, interests of the and the and State can legislate with fact in H. L. this mind. v. Matheson, 450 (1981), constitutionality U. we S. considered the aof required physician, performing statute which before an “‘[njotify, possible, [minor’s] abortion on minor, to if parents guardian.’” (quoting Id., at 400 Utah Code Ann. (1978)) added). § (emphasis 76-7-304 We held that the stat- applied dependent, ute, unmarried, as and immature mi- “plainly important narrowly nors, interests, serves state only protect interests, drawn to those and does not violate any guarantees of S., Constitution.” U. at 413. holding knowledge Our was made with contentions, by supported sociological citations to medical and literature, again today proffered proposition are for the that noti- imposes on id., fication burdens at minors. dissenting). rejected argu- We nonetheless (Marshall, requirement parental ments that a notification was the equivalent parental consent, id., of a 411; required that the was because statute unconstitutional it no- only not as abortions, tification as to other medical procedures, was unconstitu- 412; that the statute id., might seeking it deter some minors from abor- tional because at 413. tions, id., premise upon well-accepted decision was based
Our judgment leg- must defer to a reasonable the state that we public policy. it determines what is sound islature when opinion concurring judg- in the Court’s Stevens’ Justice upon explicit principle. relied statement of this ment Concluding requiring that the Utah statute notification of as minors, was valid to all unmarried both both ma- immature, ture reasoned that the Justice Stevens ensuring young considering State’s interest that a woman appropriate “plainly an abortion receive consultation was suf- support legislature’s ficient state determination that such appropriate consultation should include advice.” *61 today departs Id., at 423. The Court from this rule. It now suggests general requirement parents that a that both be no- tified is unconstitutional because of its own conclusion that unnecessary produces the law is when notice favorable re- sults, ante, 450, see and irrational in all of the instances produces when it unfavorable results, ante, see at 450-451. rejected In argu- Matheson, Justice these same Stevens ments as insufficient to establish that the Utah statute was unconstitutional: course,
“Of a conclusion that the Utah statute is prevent young pregnant invalid would not women from voluntarily seeking parents prior the advice of their making may legiti- the abortion decision. But the State mately that decide such consultation should be made by probable ensuring parents more that are informed of daughter’s their decision .... parental-notice
“Utah’s interest its statute is not guarantee diminished the fact that there can be no meaningful parent-child that actually communicationwill compliance occur. Good-faith with the statute’s re- quirements would tend to facilitate communication be- daughters parents regarding tween the abortion de- possibility cision. The that some will not react compassion understanding upon being in- daughter’s predicament their that, even formed of if they receptive, they incorrectly are will her, advise does legitimacy attempt not undercut the the State’s to es- procedure probability that will enhance the tablish pregnant young wisely possible woman exercise as as right her to make the abortion S., decision.” U. added). (emphasis 423-424
Justice Stevens’ was reasoning correct then, and it re- mains correct today.
B applying prior the standards established in our decisions keep to the cases at hand, “we must in mind that when we are extremely concerned with sensitive issues, such as the one appropriate involved here, ‘the forum for their resolution in a democracy legislature. forget is the We should not “legislatures guardians are ultimate of the liberties and wel- people quite great degree fare of as as the courts.” (1904) May, Missouri, K. T. R. & 267, Co. 194 U. S. J.).’ (Holmes, (1977) Roe, Maher v. U. S. (footnote omitted).” Reproduc- Akron v. Akron Center for (1983) (O’Connor, Health, tive Inc., 462 U. S. dissenting). Legislature, legisla- The Minnesota like the many necessary tures of States, has it found to address the *62 parental statutory my issue of in notice its laws. view it permissible has in acted manner. acknowledge
All legis- must that it was reasonable for the parents lature to conclude that most cases notice to both will work to the minor’s II, benefit. See Bellotti S., 443 U. J.) (opinion (parental n. 20 of Powell, involvement, if desirable). compassionate supportive, highly is This is only family true not what the Court calls the “ideal set- ting,” parents where both and the roof, minor live under one longer parents. both the minor no lives with also where but many deny parents not that absent maintain The Court does participate significant children, ties with their and seek to guide, to and to care for them. It is be- lives, teach, to their involving dispute yond attachments, in cases not that these or are essential to minor’s well- abuse, mistreatment supportive being, is of this kind of and that notice Although family may parent that notice to it be true one tie. rely both, need to the State not often result notice will notify particu- parent upon other, the decision one parents daughter larly their maintain ties with where both parents respon- both other, not each and when share but respect to the child. and duties with sibilities notifying acknowledge parents that cases both I in some despite produce the fact ac- not desirable results that no will two-parent as the us, is the record before no- tual instance enjoined requirement it went was before into effect. tification (stating matter of historical ante, as a fact that Cf. requirement particularly “two-parent had harm- parent” both minor the custodial ful effects on parent produce that notification of an absent would that fears realized”) added). (emphasis “were We results often harmful today, however, whether the decide Constitution need not require physician notify biolog- permits both a State performing minor, an abortion on before ical simple has enacted a law. reason that Minnesota not such exceptions in fact contains to ensure The Minnesota statute statutory apply if it does not notice safety. proves health or threat to the minor’s a serious require notice at all to com- costs; does not First, the statute physician only “reasonably ply use need dili- law, with the notify parents. gent the minor’s to locate and both of effort” may parent be if located, be as the case If the second cannot family con- has deserted the ceased maintain only parent, the re- minor or the other notice with the tact 144.343(3)(1988). § parent. quired first Minn. to the Stat. *63 parents Second, even can located, where both be notice is required physician if not certifies that the abortion is nec- essary prevent the woman’s death and there is insufficient § provide required 144.343(4)(a); notice, time to if writing, minor’s have authorized abortion in §144.343(4)(b);or if the minor declares that is she the victim 144.343(4)(c). § neglect, physical of sexual abuse, abuse, or “neglect” Under Minnesota of a law, minor means the failure supply necessary clothing, of a “to food, a child with reasonably shelter or medical care when able to do so or fail- protect ure to a child from conditions or actions which immi- nently seriously endanger physical the child’s or mental §626.556 reasonably health when so,” able to do Minn. Stat. (2)(c)(Supp. 1989); “any physical physical abuse is defined as injury by person responsible inflicted for the child’scare on §626.556(2)(d); a child other than means,” accidental by parent sexual abuse sexual contact or includes other person responsible position for the child’s care or in a of au- §626.556(2)(a). thority respect child, I cannot exceptions believe that these are too narrow to eliminate coverage from the statute’s those instances in which notice place danger would minor violence or other physical conduct that is a real threat to the mental health of the child. challenges efficacy exception
The Court of this last be- statutory requirement physi- cause it believes that the that a report appropriate cian a minor’s declaration of abuse to au- 144.343(4)(c) § (1988), thorities, see Minn. Stat. will deter n using exception. proper minors from This is not a basis declaring the law invalid. Laws are not declared uncon- general stitutional because of some reluctance to follow a statutory legislature necessary scheme the finds to accom- plish legitimate objective. Beyond any question state it is require physicians report reasonable for the State to declarations of abuse to ensure that mistreatment known responsible protection to authorities for the minors. This *64 duty in single broad manifestation is but a report suspected of child abuse to the cases to Minnesota §626.556(1)(1988)(de- proper See Minn. Stat. authorities. protect policy claring public the State “to chil- it to be jeopardized through may be health or welfare whose dren strengthen neglect and “to physical or sexual abuse” abuse, community family and safer home, school, make and by promoting responsible in child care all children for settings”). pregnant is some- minor who one can contend that a
No deserving protection. It is reason- less State’s how provide contends that she cannot minor who able notify parent she is the victim of her or because power neglect in- to use its or abuse must allow the State Any protect vestigate her from harm. her declaration and by threatening responds parent, to notice who moreover, may prosecuted harming be the minor or the other by of its laws. See Minn. the State to the full extent (1988) (Domestic Act); §518B.01 Minn. Abuse Stat. Stat. (1988 1989) Supp. §§ 609.222, 609.223, 609.224 609.221, (sexual (assault §§609.341 statutes); through 609.345 abuse statute). (criminal §609.378 statutes); neglect Just as it re- dealing upon line of defense for such laws as its first lies family situations, in so too is the other instances of abuse all rely upon them here. entitled to State protections Notwithstanding exceptions we have possible, course, that in in- discussed, it does remain some notifying parents will not be in the minor’s one or both stances possibility, Allegations of a similar based interests. best presented sociological upon to that in these evidence similar appellant in Matheson. Brief was made cases, Appellant Matheson, in T. 79-5903, H. L. v. O. No. for pp. Brief Parenthood Federation of Amer- 10-11; for Planned Amici Matheson 16-31. The Inc., al., et as Curiae ica, law valid, there held that the was Court simple minors, for the reason that a at least as immature governmental inter- if to further the it fails law is not invalid point every the cornerstone of This formed instance. est concurring opinion Matheson, see 450 Justice Stevens’ explicit statement and it finds its most 423-424, atS.,U. opinion S.,U. at 602- R., in Parham v. J. the Court’s 603: family presumption concept rests on a
“The law’s maturity, parents possess ex- child lacks what a making required capacity judgment perience, for historically, importantly, decisions. More life’s difficult *65 par- recognized bonds of affection lead that natural it has their . . . interests of children. act in the best ents to experi- legal presumptions, many so other “As with accepts reality may the law as a rebut what and ence neglect starting point; child and abuse the incidence of ‘may at times be That some attest to this. cases acting against of their children’ . . . the best interests hardly a reason to caution, but is creates basis experience pages of human that those wholesale discard parents generally in the child’s best do act teach interests.” majority only of the Court has devi- in which a cases sought principle to in which a State are those
ated from this upon receipt services minor’s access to abortion condition a parent’s In Planned Parenthood to do so. her consent (1976), in- the Court 428 U. S. Danforth, Mo. v. Central physician requiring that a obtain a Missouri law validated performing an abortion. The before of one consent “[T]he reasoning State does not was unmistakable: Court’s party authority give to a third an ab- constitutional have the arbitrary, possibly the decision of the veto over solute, and patient’s preg- patient physician terminate the his to withholding nancy, regardless the consent.” of the reason for today, ignoring statement, relies this The Court at 74. Id., passages ante, at heavily upon Danforth, from see isolated involving parental laws, consent other cases 452-453, and II). g., Bellotti ante, at 453 e. see, (citing Mar- Justice laws requiring hand, expressly equates on the other shall, notification, laws requiring parental consent with parental ante, at 471-472 J., concurring part, con- see (Marshall, part, dissenting part). curring judgment was apparent between notice and consent The difference consent now. Unlike apparent before and us third any notice does not give a law laws, requiring parental her, make the decision for minor’s right legal party she choose from an abortion should obtaining her to prevent this distinc We have acknowledged have one performed. as “fundamental,” “substantially modify[ing] as one tion (Bel Bellotti v. Baird constitutional challenge.” the federal I), Matheson, lotti see also 132, 145, (1976); 428 U. S. supra, does not an ab place n. 17. The law before us to obtain an abor seeking obstacle before minor solute of the compet and it a considered tion, represents weighing and their parents. interests of minors ing as a state statute is “It cannot be doubted as long the char assum[e] ‘the of reason and [does not] within bounds . fiat . . . State . . arbitrary [t]he acter of a merely [then] *66 for the protec must decide measures are needful upon Akron, at 459 S., . . . .’” 462 U. tion of its people (O’Con Purity Tonic Extract & Co. v. J., dissenting) (quoting nor, Lynch, (1912)). Like all laws of gen 226 U. S. per the Minnesota statute cannot produce eral application, but in to which it the every applies; fect results situation The to enact laws. stat obligation perfect is under no State which the 48-hour is us, including waiting period, ute before with notified to consult their parents to enable necessary wish, if so physician, they daughter’s or their daughter a delay, in no rea represents permissible, little or results in a the role minor’s deci parents’ to attempt preserve soned obsta without absolute placing to have an abortion sion an abortion is determined to elect for cles before a minor who 144.343, it. without the she sees Section her own interest as bypass provision judicial 6, is constitutional. of subdivision contrary judgment the of of Court I would reverse the Appeals.
IV two-parent majority holds that the of the Court Because requirement in subdivision is unconstitu- notice contained necessary whether the for Court to consider tional, it is the requirement if minor has the the notice is constitutional same permitting option obtaining to the abortion of a court order § required proceed 144.343 of notice. Minn. Stat. in lieu the (6) (1988). part Assuming, to do this as I am bound for standing analysis, provisions invalid, alone are notice two-parent I notice conclude that the judicial bypass is constitutional. alternative two-parent notice
The concludes that Minnesota’s Court judicial bypass because is unconstitutional law without possibility cases, rule would not work in some that, parents. at- If were to one the benefit of minors their design tempt con- the Court’s that would address a statute precisely has done what Minnesota cerns, one would do §144.343(6): identify, judicial mechanism to create exempt in which law, those cases the strictures of from minor’s or in which notification of is mature minor pro- bypass best interests. not the minor’s respects precedents. comports with our in all cedure J.); (opinion Powell, S., at 643-644 II, Bellotti U. Assn, City, Mo., Inc. Kansas Planned Parenthood (1983) J.); (opinion Powell, U. Ashcroft, S. (O’Connor, judgment part concurring id., at 505 Reproductive part); dissenting Akron Ohio v. Center for p. post, Health, 502. nothing providing bypass, Minnesota has done legislation attempt framework fit into the its than
other *67 simple previous supplied fact cases. The that we have our proposition for II in Bellotti stands is that our decision provides two-parent if it law is constitutional a consent that requires judicial bypass it us alternative, and a sufficient In II, before us here. Bellotti sustain the statute constitutionality which of a statute considered Court physician required obtain, circumstances, a most parents performing an of a minor’s before consent both (opinionof S., on the minor. See 443 U. at 625-626 abortion J.) §12S (citing Laws. Powell, Ann., Mass. Gen. ch. 1979)). (West eight Supp. Although Court Members of the five indi- unconstitutional, that the statute was concluded they uphold two-parent would consent statute cated judicial bypass. adequate eight forming majority in four of the Justices For lay inadequate by- II, the failure of the statute its Bellotti pass procedure, not its that both of the minor’s (opin- parents to the abortion. See 443 at 643 S., consent U. J.). opinion specifically Powell, ion of Justice Powell’s stated require pregnant “if the State decides to minor to ob- parents’ or both consent to an it also must abortion, tain one procedure whereby provide an alternative authorization for ibid, (emphasis added; foot- obtained,” the abortion can be omitted), requirements for and then stated the minimum note procedure. response In to the such dissent’s contention opinion advisory, that his was Justice Powell stated that the thought necessary it four Members of the Court provide guidance “to some as to how a constitu- by State tionally may provide for adult involvement—either judge or a state officialsuch as a the abor- —in importance decision of minors. view of tion protracted litigation raised, issue and the which these already subjected, parties have been we think it would irresponsible simply [the be to invalidate Massachusetts stating controlling prin- law] without our views as to the ciples.” n. 32. Id., concurring) (joining id., also (Rehnquist, opinion [the Powell’s because “unless and until Court
Justice willing literally judges to overrule thousands of Danforth], *68 nothing guidance cannot be left with more than the offered Court”). truly holding fragmented a of this judgment Justice White dissented from the Court’s that the Massachusetts statute was unconstitutional. his view bypass necessary, two-parent no was so it must followthat a adequate bypass procedure consent statute with an would id., have been valid. See In sum, at 656-657. five Mem- by express of in bers the Court Bellotti II found, either state- by implication, permissible ment that it was under the require par- a Constitution for State to the consent of two long provides ents, as as it a consent substitute the form of adequate judicial bypass procedure. accept suggestion today I cannot Justice Stevens’ announcing Powell, Justice these did rules, not “con doing the fact that he was so in the context of sider” two-parent requirement, consent at ante, see 455-456. The explicit statute was its command that both consent to the abortion. See at 625-626. Justice Powell U. S., indicated he was fact, id., aware of see at 630, this specific n. and the dissent drew a contrast between the two-parent requirement consent then before Court and one-parent requirement consent before the Court in Dan- (opinion J.); forth, see at of White, 656-657 see S., U. concurring judgment). id., also at 653 (Stevens, of all these Aware of circumstances, Justice Powell stated controlling principles specific requir with reference to laws ing parents. consent “one or both” Id., 643. Jus coupled reasoning, tice Powell’s considered with the dissent ing views of intended set was forth the White, Justice dispositive principles deciding constitutionality of law for upon consent laws. The has relied Court these principles deciding constitutionality requiring of laws parent, notice or the of one consent Akron see Akron Cen (con Reproductive Health, ter Inc., U. at 439-442 S., for sent); Health, Reprod post, Ohiov. Akron Center uctive (notice). As Bellotti II dealt with the far de- more approved two-parent manding requirement consent, coupled bypass requirement judicial alter- when such principles these I must conclude that same validate a native, judicial coupled two-parent when with a notice *69 bypass alternative. compels precedent a the that
A conclusion two- second judicial bypass a alternative is law with con- notice held our decision Matheson. There we that a stitutional is bypass two-parent a notice statute without was constitutional applied minors whose interests would to immature best be as by Like the statute the Court in notice. before served by statute, the Minnesota as amended subdivision Matheson, physician notify requires parents a to the of those im- by minors whose best interest will be served mature the communication. may two-parent
If a notification law be constitutional as applied are immature minors whose interests to best served by applied but not as to are mature law, the minors who bypass judicial served, not so is whose best interests are' a by separate expeditious and efficient means which to the applications from of the law which are constitutional those ju- which are not. characterization Justice Stevens’ bypass procedure past discussed in our cases as a dicial nec- essary “exception” general rule,” “reasonable such to a as a one-parent requirement, 456, 457, see is ante, consent at far judicial by bypass If a off the mark. is mandated Con- general all, it must be because a consent rule stitution is applications, by- at least some of its unreasonable pass necessary g., Bellotti See, save statute. e. II, J.); (opinion supra, Powell, S., at 643 450 U. Matheson, (Powell, concurring). given No reason be can re- analysis demanding fusing apply similar less case of a statute. It followsthat a similar result should notice ob- requires parents is A law that notice to one or tain: both con- bypass. portion I thus concur in that stitutional with judgment agreed not announced, with, but Ste- Justice Appeals’ affirms conclusion that which the Court VENS §144.343(6)is constitutional. V legislature’s rejects judgment case, this Court daughter’s their should at least be aware of intention empower if does abortion, seek an even the State not to parents judgment That is re- to control the child’sdecision. jected although upon it of a role in rests a tradition upbringing that is as old as civiliza- the care and of children permit precedents not this result. tion itself. Our do prospect many young women the It is that for all too true parent, sustaining parents, perhaps her with of two even one support compassionate illusion. and committed is an that is by parents drug and documen- abuse Statistics on and alcohol fragments neglect are but tations of and mistreatment child reality day- showing tragic that becomes of the evidence *70 to-day But the errs in minors. Court life for thousands of degree its own solution to the serious when it commands consequences misconduct, failure, cruel of individual authority legislative is entitled to at- and social ills. taking tempt wrongs by reasonable measures to meet these family recognize promote primacy tie, a con- declaring cept intent on a con- now which this Court seems stitutional irrelevance.