Parental notification: Is it settled? (Law and Policy Analysis).

Does the Supreme Court's recent decision in the widely publicized Utah parental notification case permit states to require that all minors notify their parents before obtaining an abortion? Despite numerous reports to the contrary, the Court did not issue such a sweeping ruling. In H. L. v. Maheson, (1) the Court upheld parental notification only for a narrowly defined group of minors. It ruled, 6-3, that it is constitutional for a state to require a physician to notify the parents when the minor is living at home and dependent on them for support, does not claim to be mature enough to make the abortion decision on her own and offers no special reasons why her parents should not be told. For such minors, the Court held, notice to parents serves important state interests in preserving the integrity of the family and protecting adolescents.

The Court, however, did not address the question of whether a state may impose a blanket requirement of parental notification on all minors, including those who are emancipated or mature, (*) or who can show why it would not be in their best interest for their parents to be informed. The Court said that issue would have to be resolved in a future case.

At the time Matheson was decided, five of the justices appeared firmly opposed to parental notification for all minors. (+) However, with the resignation of one of the five, Potter Stewart, the outcome of future litigation is somewhat less certain; it appears to rest with Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and with Justice Stewart's replacement, Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

A Line of Decisions

Since the Supreme Court held in 1973 that a woman has a constitutional right to abortion, courts, state legislatures and medical providers have grappled with the difficult issue of whether parents have a right to participate in the decision of a minor daughter to terminate a pregnancy. In Roe v. Wade, (2) the Court said that a woman's abortion decision, when made in consultation with her physician, is protected by the constitutional right to privacy. It was silent on the question of whether a minor's parents have any right to influence or overrule her decision, or even to be informed that she is pregnant and seeking an abortion. The Matheson decision is the latest in a line of rulings in which the Court has attempted to define the extent of parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision that a state may mandate.

In a 1976 decision, Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, (3) the Court struck down a provision in a Missouri abortion statute that required every unmarried minor to have a parent's consent before obtaining an abortion. The Court held that minors as well as adults have a constitutional right to abortion and that a state may not impose a blanket requirement of parental consent and thereby give "a third party an absolute, and possibly arbitrary, veto over the decision of the physician and his patient to terminate the patient's pregnancy, regardless of the reasons for withholding consent."

Three years later, in Bellotti v. Baird (4) (known popularly as Bellotti II to distinguish it from an earlier decision), the Court reaffirmed its position on parental consent when it held unconstitutional a Massachusetts law requiring a minor to have the consent of both parents or, if they refused permission, the authorization of a court. Although eight of the justices found the law invalid, they did not agree on the reasons. Four justices (#) struck it down because it would have permitted a judge to override the decision of a mature minor to obtain an abortion and because the alternative to parental consent--initiation of legal proceedings--was potentially a greater interference in the minor's exercise of her right to obtain an abortion than the need to have her parents' permission.