Document: 443 U.S. 622 99 S.Ct. 3035 61 L.Ed.2d 797 Francis X. BELLOTTI, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al., Appellants,v.William BAIRD al. Jane HUNERWADEL, etc., Appellant, v. William Nos. 78-329, 78-330. Argued Feb. 27, 1979. Decided July 2, Rehearing Denied Oct. 1, See 444 887, 100 185. Syllabus A Massachusetts statute requires parental consent before an abortion can be performed on unmarried woman under the age 18. If one or both parents refuse such consent, however, may obtained by order a judge superior court "for good cause shown." In appellees' class action challenging constitutionality statute, three-judge District Court held it unconstitutional. Subsequently, this vacated Court's judgment, Bellotti Baird, 428 132, 96 2857, 49 844, holding that should have abstained and certified to Supreme Judicial appropriate questions concerning meaning statute. On remand, several Court. Among was whether permits any minors—mature immature—to obtain judicial without consultation whatsoever. The answered that, in general, does not; must for every nonemergency unless no parent is available; available given notice proceedings brought minor abortion. Another question whether, if finds capable making, has, fact, made adhered to, informed reasonable decision abortion, its finding parent's, own, contrary better one. affirmative. Following again declared unconstitutional enjoined enforcement. Held: judgment affirmed. Pp. 633-651; 652-656. D.C., 450 F.Supp. 997, Mr. Justice POWELL, joined Chief BURGER, STEWART, REHNQUIST, concluded that: 1 1. There are three reasons justifying conclusion constitutional rights children cannot equated with those adults: peculiar vulnerability children; their inability make critical decisions informed, mature manner; importance guiding role upbringing children. 633-639. 2 2. differs important ways from other facing minors, State required act particular sensitivity when legislates foster involvement matter. 639-642. 3 3. decides require pregnant parents' also provide alternative procedure whereby authorization obtained. entitled proceeding show either she enough well her decision, physician, independently wishes, even not able independently, desired would best interests. Such ensure provision requiring fact amount impermissible "absolute, possibly arbitrary, veto." Planned Parenthood Central Missouri Danforth, 52, 74, 2831, 2843, 788. 642-644. 4 4. as authoritatively interpreted Court, unduly burdens right seek falls short standards two respects. First, withheld who found fully competent independently. Second, notification instance, minor's interests, affording opportunity receive independent determination 644-651. 5 STEVENS, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, because written construed minor, matter how decisionmaking, judge, thus making subject instance absolute third-party veto. 788, controlling. 6 Garrick F. Cole, Boston, Mass., appellants No. Brian A. Riley, appellant 7 Joseph J. Balliro John H. Henn, appellees cases. 8 POWELL announced delivered opinion, which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, REHNQUIST joined. 9 These appeals present challenge state regulating access minors abortions. They us continue inquiry we began 788 (1976), 844 (1976). 10 * 11 August 1974, Legislature Commonwealth passed, over Governor's veto, Act pertaining abortions within State. 1974 Mass. Acts, ch. 706. According title, intended regulate "within limits." Shortly go into effect, these arise commenced Court1 enjoin, unconstitutional, now codified Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., 112, § 12S (West Supp.1979).2 Section provides part: 12 "If mother less than eighteen years has married, [to mother] required. mother's shown, after hearing he deems necessary. will appointment guardian mother. died deserted his family, remaining sufficient. person having duties similar guardian, had assumed care custody commissioner public health shall prescribe form consent. signed proper persons physician performing maintain permanent files." 13 Physicians absence injunctions criminal penalties. §§ 12Q, 12T, 12U Supp.1979). 14 convened hear case pursuant 28 U.S.C. 2281 (1970 ed.), repealed Pub.L. 94-381, 90 Stat. 1119.3 Plaintiffs suit, cases now, were Baird; Parents Aid Society, Inc. (Parents Aid), Baird founder director; Gerald Zupnick, M. D., regularly performs at clinic; identified pseudonym "Mary Moe," who, commencement pregnant, residing home parents, desirous obtaining informing them.4 15 Mary Moe permitted represent "class adequate capacity give valid abortion], do wish involve parents." Bellotti, 393 847, 850 (Mass.1975) (Baird). Initially there some confusion but lack "adequate capacity" could adjudicated suit. ultimately determined Dr. Zupnick assert minors. 1001, n. (Mass.1978).5 16 League Crittenton Hastings House & Clinic, organizations counseling adolescents, Phillip Stubblefield, D. (intervenors),6 appeared amici curiae behalf plaintiffs. "accepted [this group] status something more reservations about adequacy plaintiffs' representation [of plaintiff classes suit]." Id., 999 17 Defendants here Attorneys all counties Hunerwadel intervene defendant representative daughters then were, might become, pregnant. She represents 78-330.7 18 days testimony, issued opinion invalidating 12S. I, supra. rejected argument becoming giving always interests desires F.Supp., 854. But convinced "a substantial number females forming consent," id., 855, "that significant [these] unwilling tell 853. 19 analysis relevant principles, stated "there doubt female's first trimester depend upon calendar age." 855-856. justification limitation placed 12S, since "cast terms protecting . recognizing 856. "independent" protected understood them, wholly distinct minor.8 B 20 Appellants sought review noted probable jurisdiction. 423 982, 390, 46 301 (1975). After briefing oral argument, became apparent susceptible construction "would avoid substantially modify federal statute." 148, 2866, (1976) (Bellotti ). We therefore concluding existing Mass.Sup.Jud.Ct. Rule 3:21. 21 nine Court.9 styled General, 371 741, 360 N.E.2d 288 (1977) (Attorney aspects following: 22 deciding grant daughter's consider exclusively what serve 746-747, N.E.2d, 292-293. 23 granted, objections notwithstanding, shown" means granted "must disregard objections, considerations, based exclusively" standard. 748, 293. 24 Even made, abortion," withhold "in circumstances where determines served abortion." Ibid., 25 As general rule, seeking Exceptions rule exist need constitutes " 'an emergency immediate action.' "10 750, 294. Unless available, notified 755-756, 297. 26 5. resolution follow expected prompt. name confidence. be, courts promulgate rules issue orders handled expeditiously. 756-758, 297-298. 27 6. Gen.Laws 12F Supp.1979), provides, inter alia, certain most kinds medical approval, apply abortions, except widowed, divorced. 758-762, 298-300. Nor State's common-law "mature rule" create exception 749-750, 27,infra. C returned stay enforcement until determined. 854 (Mass.1977) (Baird II permitting discovery sides, pretrial conference, conducting further hearings, 997 (Mass.1978) III which, view, rendered 29 virtually available. believed evidence warranted many, perhaps large majority 17-year olds insubstantial 16-year olds, younger." 1001. addition, "immature" minors—those incapable consent—even inform Although declined decide burden take was, per se, constitutionally insist permission court, free rein, find ." 1002. 30 defective veto reasoned maturity longer impose legal restrictions decision. 1003. Given finding, see "no basis" distinguishing between adult, only "an undue due process sense, [but] discriminatory denial equal protection [as well]." 1004. 31 Finally, decided suffered termed "formal overbreadth," ibid., failed explicitly they despite naturally infer other, reasons. This thought "chilling effect" enhancing possibility denied wrongfully proceed court. 32 Having flaws considered engage "judicial repair." 1005. It sever different set out tribunal arguably invited do. 745-746, 292. previous position, declaring permanently enjoining enforcement.11 second time, 439 925, 307, 58 317 (1978). 33 child, merely account minority, beyond Constitution. said re Gault, 387 13, 87 1428, 1436, 527 (1967), "whatever precise impact, neither Fourteenth Amendment nor Bill Rights adults alone."12 observation, course, beginning analysis. long recognized law unique many Frankfurter aptly put it: "[C]hildren very special place life reflect. Legal theories phrasing readily lead fallacious reasoning uncritically transferred duty towards children." May Anderson, 345 528, 536, 73 840, 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953) (concurring opinion). our society institution "we inculcate pass down cherished values, moral cultural," Moore East Cleveland, 431 494, 503-504, 1932, 1938, 52 531 (plurality opinion), principles applied flexibility needs child rearing. 34 concern demonstrated dealing minors' claims against deprivations liberty property With respect claims, child's coextensive adult. For example, Amendment's guarantee deprivation applicable juvenile delinquency proceedings. particular, involved notice, assistance counsel, confront accusers. guilty proof doubt, privilege compulsory self-incrimination. Winship, 397 358, 1068, 368 (1970); Ingraham Wright, 430 651, 674, 1401, 1414, 51 711 (corporal punishment school-children implicates interest); cf. Breed Jones, 421 519, 95 1779, 44 346 (1975) (Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits prosecuting adult adjudicatory violated statute). Similarly, Goss Lopez, 419 565, 729, 42 725 (1975), deprived process. 35 rulings been uncritical assumption indistinguishable adults. Indeed, acceptance justice system assumes offenders treated differently preserve separate avenue hearings necessarily 'conform requirements trial usual administrative hearing.' supra, U.S., 30, S.Ct., 1445, quoting Kent United States, 383 541, 562, 86 1045, 1057, 84 (1966). Thus, juveniles jury adjudications. McKeiver Pennsylvania, 403 91 1976, 647 (1971). Viewed together, although generally same guarantees governmental adults, adjust children's "concern, sympathy, paternal attention." 550, 1989 36 States validly limit freedom choose themselves important, affirmative choices potentially serious consequences. grounded recognition during formative childhood adolescence, often experience, perspective, recognize detrimental them.13 37 Ginsberg New York, 390 629, 88 1274, 195 (1968), illustrates choices, First clear examples freedoms choice. At conviction selling sexually oriented magazines violation York law. conceded stood sale material 634, 1277. Notwithstanding attached rights, "even invasion 'the power control conduct reaches scope authority .,' 638, 1280, Prince 321 158, 170, 64 438, 444, 645 (1944).14 rationally conclude presented danger guarded. Ginsberg, 641, 1281. minors.15 38 Third, justifies limitations commonly protects youth adverse own immaturity minors.16 additional deference "[t]he mere creature state; nurture him direct destiny right, coupled high duty, prepare obligations." Pierce Society Sisters, 268 510, 535, 45 571, 573, 69 1070 (1925). "The 'additional obligations' read include inculcation standards, religious beliefs, elements citizenship." Wisconsin Yoder, 406 205, 233, 92 1526, 1542, (1972). teaching, guiding, inspiring precept example essential growth young people mature, socially responsible citizens. 39 country process, part, competence impersonal political institutions. sponsorship ethical, religious, beliefs expect attempt committed ideal individual "[i]t cardinal custody, reside whose primary function preparation obligations supply hinder." 166, 442 (emphasis added). 40 Unquestionably, competing effective way fulfill central assisting adulthood. While pretend wisdom subject, ignore theories, deeply rooted Nation's history tradition, belief implies measure one's "constitutional interpretation consistently claim household rearing basic structure society." 639, 1280. 41 Properly understood, then, tradition inconsistent liberty; rather, former presuppositions latter. especially supportive role, chances full eventual participation meaningful rewarding.17 Under Constitution, "properly others, teachers [the] responsibility well-being support laws designed aid discharge responsibility." 1280.18 mind, specific appeals. attempted reconcile woman, terminate pregnancy established Roe Wade, 410 113, 93 705, 147 (1973), Doe Bolton, 179, 739, 201 interest encouraging advice bear child. above, remanded provisions Massachusetts. previously lawfully authorize pregnancy. 2843. "fundamentally creates 'parental veto,' 145, 2865, "avoid[ing] modify[ing] 2866. us—in light prior cases—is manner 147, 43 Appellees intervenors contend right. suggest, requirement burden. Part qualifications typically imposed decisions. immature ability long-range consequences, reasonably determine desirable minor.19 determine, proposition, particularly decision—one raises profound concerns.20 STEWART wrote concurrence 91, 2851: "There little furthers permissible end help That grave girl tender years, emotional stress, ill-equipped support. seems unlikely counsel attending clinic, frequently place." (Footnote omitted.)21 concerned minority. nature options much situations, marry. marry simply postpone spouse later marriage desire it. adolescent, aborting, effectively expires weeks onset 47 Moreover, severe detriment 153, 726, mitigated considering education, employment skills, financial resources, maturity, unwanted motherhood exceptionally burdensome minor. brings responsibility, parenthood, like attainment majority, traditional criteria termination disabilities sum, few situations denying consequences so indelible. 48 Yet, choice arises vary widely. case, alternatives father arranging adoption, assuming responsibilities assured feasible Nonetheless, postponed, default far-reaching reasons, "the blanket loco parentis condition pregnancy." Although, II, inappropriate "to third party absolute, patient patient's pregnancy, regardless reason withholding consent." procedure22 50 either: (1) wishes;23 (2) showing assure issue, follow, completed anonymity sufficient expedition veto" Danforth. Ibid. tested. observe initially highest State, satisfies concerns treatment refused, "obtained necessary." presiding interests."24 stated: "Prompt [§ 12S] expected. steps taken, impoundment otherwise, confidentiality parents. [W]e believe early appeal Superior achieved." 757-758, 298. added expectations met, exercise rulemaking power, willing eliminate order. Ibid.25 Despite safeguards, objectionable successfully challenged these. 53 9, not. "[T]he must] unmarried." text itself states unnecessary "died family."26 containing exception: Consent "where (or statutory substitute) available." ruled abortion.27 54 think manner, recognized, obstruct, altogether prevent, court." III, withheld. hold strong views living home, vulnerable efforts obstruct unrealistic, therefore, assume existence relief most. 55 conclude, regulation undertaken opportunity—if desires—to directly consulting notifying intelligently fails satisfy nevertheless persuaded is, If, decline sanction operation. 56 family rather Also, observed welfare children—an normal relationship exists factors properly taken called things considered, involvement. hand, deny request concludes thereby, defer participate. extent required.28 burdened state-imposed conditions initial 57 "custom" perform surgical procedures parent, "nothing differently." 852. 1004 9. 59 unconstitutionally implications far broader associated treatment. least together interest—one normally supportive—in helping course daughter. protective immaturity. stated, focus consultation, goes denied, still recourse prompt interests.29 60 (3) making], one?" 747 5, 293 To answered: 62 "[W]e view judge's limited Certainly circumstances, but, carried out, basis him. suspect great weight determination, reasonable, prevail, supported findings fact." 63 statement reflects wait being 23, character. 642-643. attained agree permit assess made.30 IV them respects: interests.31 Accordingly, affirm insofar invalidates enjoins enforcement.32 65 Affirmed. 66 concurring. 67 I join time reconsider earlier inPlanned WHITE, dissenting participate task. comes, literally thousands judges left nothing guidance offered truly fragmented 68 whom BLACKMUN join, concurring judgment. woman's protection. 72-75, 2842-2843, conditioned parent. am affirmance 70 face, simple straightforward. married secure receiving 71 Whatever uncertainty existed operate, eliminated authoritative (1977). wishes Both proceedings, task make, judge. veto.1 72 invalidated husband spousal unilaterally prohibit wife terminating lacks right." 70, 2841. And "[j]ust spouse, here, holdings, think, equally differences statutes few. Unlike does, suit initiated proceeding, afforded decisions, Missouri, "absolute 90, 2851 (STEWART, J., concurring), married. judge—or, potentially, appointed administrator2—is me troubling. affords privacy cases: "One avoiding disclosure personal matters, another independence decisions." Whalen Roe, 429 589, 599-600, 869, 876, (footnotes omitted). inherent exercised scrutiny defiance sovereign parties. Danforth prerequisite abortion—is sovereign. practical matter, suppose commence as, probably greater than, parent.3 once standard provided real reflect societal values mores decision—is fundamentally odds underlying 74 short, litigation governed ; restrictive Because constitutional, further, addresses enacted, opinion.4 75 dissenting. 76 dissent 94-95, 2853, validity seeks expressed STEVENS case. 101-105, 2855-2857. not, strike 77 kind deemed invalid, condemn law, object, authorizes Going holds daughter and, object "best interests" undergo surgery. Until inconceivable Constitution forbids surgery objects convince 78 respect, dissent. promptly restraining remained effect merits. Subsequent stays complex litigation, result never enforced originally designated 12P chapter 112. 1977, renumbered numbering subdivisions section eliminated. No changes substance made. refer throughout opinion. described detail 136-143, 2861-2864, Three named complaint, complaint dismissed want standing. appeal. argue court's remedy tailored "mature" opinions, affected accept entire category adjudication. 1978, postjudgment intervention parties, appear jointly intervenor-appellees. positions closely aligned, identical, 78-329 78-330 hereinafter referred collectively appellants. One member dissented, arguing allow consistent propriety 857-865. footnotes omitted, follows: "1. What any, establish consent? "a) Is 'exclusively interest'? "b) consideration 'long-term relationship'? "c) Other? "2. apply? interests? capable, one? "3. Does (a) 'capable consent,' (b) 'incapable 'to [a court] consultation'? "4. answers affirmative, enter authorizing (a), (b), subsequent notification? "5. Will implement c. expedite application, hearing, phases thereunder? Appeal? "6. degree forth (Stat.1975, 564), dental specified parallel grounds 12S]? "7. indigency, court-appointed counsel? "8. defense prosecution solely valid, reasonably, faith, though erroneously, old married? "9. comments assist determining infringes Constitution?" dispenses "has family." agreed override He disagreed remainder conclusions: best-interests argued, part language itself; evidentiary record proving rarely disserved value source 1006-1020. (1976): "Constitutional come magically attains state-defined majority. Minors, possess rights." "secur[e] each man himself listen," 649, 1285, (1968) result): "[A]t precisely delineated areas, child—like someone captive audience—is possessed presupposition guarantees. premise, suppose, deprive marry, vote—deprivations intolerable adults." 649-650, 1286 sell literature street child-labor activity sincere request. 162, 440. upholding adult's protect children" "opportunities well-developed men citizens," 165, 442, enforce "[c]oncededly invalid," 167, considerable latitude enacting affecting lesser choice, Tinker Des Moines School Dist., 503, 89 733, 731 (1969), arbitrarily altogether. schoolchild's expression him, school policy, attend wearing black armband silent protest American hostilities Vietnam. acknowledged otherwise shielded reason—whether stems place, type behavior materially disrupts classwork involves disorder others." 513, 740. upheld schoolchildren armbands threatened interference objectives district, policy primarily stifle debate whatsoever—even nondisruptive discussions—on issues. 738. See, e. g., 207, 7, 24, 25, 33, 33A 1958 Supp.1979) (parental 18); 119, 55A (waiver through guardian). Hafen, Children's Liberation Egalitarianism: Some Reservations About Abandoning Children Their "Rights," 1976 B.Y.U.L.Rev. 605. opinions discussed above—Pierce, Prince, —all contributed line suggesting undue, Smith Organization Foster Families, 816, 842-844, 2094, 2109, (1977); Carey Population Services International, 678, 708, 2010, 2028, 675 (opinion J.); opinion); Stanley Illinois, 405 645, 1208, 1212, 551 (1972); Meyer Nebraska, 262 399, 625, 1042 (1923). Cf. Parham R., 584, 2493, 101 (1979); 621, 2513 result). 75, 2844, "[w]e emphasize[d] [did] suggest expert testimony uniformly compassionate supportive, highly desirable. consensus. STEWART's underscored describing followed clinic operated Zupnick: occurs entirely day lasts hours takes groups strangers Counseling description procedures, possible complications, birth techniques five seven minutes contact [clinic], busy patients scheduled groups, consisting usually [the physician] spends brief period others group recovery room 91-92, Brief O.T.1975, 75-73, pp. 43-44. emphasized physician. Those women presumably selecting according record, range 17-year-old teenagers. latter likely know qualified physicians, professionals. Many bypass resort distinguish ethical incompetent unethical. discuss choosing delegate agency officer. employing forum formal fostering problem "maturity" makes why objective, inevitably limits, marital status, membership Armed Forces lifting Not difficult define, let alone respects mean discipline ended. text, case-by-case evaluations restriction 630. adhere." Intervenors state-supported permissible, endorse restriction, flawed face. concur encourage 1004-1005; 854, 855-856 (Mass.1977). assertion. "is ordinance itself," Poulos Hampshire, 395, 402, 760, 765, 1105 (1953), obliged parental-consent "as amended [Massachusetts] legislature." Winters 333 507, 514, 665, 669, 840 (1948). assurances necessary confidentiality, procedural burden, speed resolution. operation 12S—and none, enjoin putting effect—we correct. "[i]f sufficient." reading strictly argued abrogate Massachusetts' minor" applies 144, 2864. suggested approval consultation. 2865; 751, sketched outlines 12S: calls operation, benefit, understand involves. obtained, doctor did warrant reliance advance misapplication rule." 752, 295. "We apart treatment, Commonwealth." 754, 296. inapplicable legislatively superseded Of consults voluntarily immediately. received event, parent's great, dispositive, weight. violates Equal Protection Amendment. infirm question. evidently regard occurs. below stages trimester. 1001; coincides approximately pre-viability decide, immune intervention. 164-165, 732. diminish progresses legitimate increase. Furthermore, safeguard them. Members characterizes "ad- visory" "hypothetical." Apparently, criticism involvement—either official raised, protracted parties already subjected, irresponsible invalidate stating controlling principles. today I. issues presents unanimous directions "concerning imposes." 151, 2868. directed done because, urged "avoid feature state-court ultimate necessary, 2865. veto' Danforth.]" (footnote providing decisionmaking invalid remain sharpened By post, 657 (WHITE, dissenting). Neither ante, 643 22. filing guaranteed. response "construe[d] ad litem indigent expense, discretion, appointment." 764, 288, enacts scheme, occasion render advisory scheme. statute—rather outline statute—and controversy quite hypothetical elected address. irony suggestion vindicate child," wonder legislature would, today's enacted comparable my Brethren discussed.

Category: 4