Article Summary –
The Montana Supreme Court heard arguments regarding parental consent for minors seeking abortions. The case was brought forth by Planned Parenthood of Montana and is based on two laws from 2012 and 2013 that require parental notification and consent for abortions in minors under 18. The court is considering whether or not these laws violate a minor’s constitutional right to privacy.
The Montana Supreme Court is Revisiting Parental Consent Abortion Laws
The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a longstanding case regarding parental consent for minor abortions, a legal issue debated for over a decade by Montana voters, lawmakers, and residents.
The case revolves around two restrictions from 2012 and 2013: a voter-approved referendum requiring parental notification for abortions for minors under 16, and a law enacted the next year requiring parental consent for all abortion patients under 18. Both laws were contested by Planned Parenthood of Montana, resulting in delayed litigation, revitalized under Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen.
About a year ago, a state district court judge, Christopher Abbott, ruled the parental consent law violated Montana’s constitutional right to privacy. Abbott allowed the parental notification restriction to remain while the consent law appeal is considered by the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, Montana Deputy Solicitor General Brent Mead argued for reversing Abbott’s decision, stating that the consent act protects minors by involving a responsible adult in a significant life decision. Mead emphasized a different constitutional section concerning minors’ rights.
“Article 2, Section 15 allows the restriction of a minor’s rights if a law enhances their protection,” argued Mead. When Justice Ingrid Gustafson questioned the lack of mandatory follow-up care in the consent act, Mead countered that parental involvement enhances parents’ rights to care for their children.
Discussing the conflict between the consent act and Montana’s right to privacy, Justice Dirk Sandefur asked Mead to respond. Mead reiterated that the state does not need to prove compelling interest if it aims to protect youth.
Arguments from Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood’s attorney, Tanis Holm, urged the Supreme Court to prioritize the right to privacy. Holm argued that minors, like adult women, would face life-altering impacts if forced by others to continue a pregnancy, thereby infringing on their privacy rights.
Holm contested the state’s argument that the consent act safeguards minors from the medical and psychological risks linked to abortion. Instead, Holm referred to recent court decisions that abortion procedures are “exceedingly safe.”
Justice Jim Shea questioned Holm about the state’s compelling interest in ensuring minors provide informed consent for health procedures, and whether parental notification would be reasonable. Holm retorted that the state lacks proof that minors are inadequate in relaying their medical histories to health providers and that minors are allowed to make comparable health decisions without similar restrictions.
Presiding Justice Beth Baker stated the court would consider the case further and issue its decision in due course.
—
Read More Montana News
