Legal Document

428 U.S. 132 96 Supreme Court Reporter 2857 49 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 844 Francis X. BELLOTTI, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al., Appellants,v.William BAIRD al. Jane HUNERWADEL, etc., Appellant, versus William Nos. 75-73, 75-109. Argued March 23, 1976. Decided July 1, Syllabus A 1974 Massachusetts statute governs the type consent, including parental required before an abortion may be performed on unmarried woman under age 18. Appellees, counseling organization, its president and medical director, several women who were pregnant at time, brought a class action against appellant District Attorneys, claiming that violates Due Process Equal Protection Clauses Fourteenth Amendment. temporary restraining order was entered prior to effective date statute. Thereafter, three-judge held unconstitutional as creating "parental veto" over performance abortions minor children in it applied even those minors capable giving informed permanently enjoined operation, denying by implication appellants' motion court abstain from deciding issue pending authoritative construction Judicial Court. In 1975, after Court's decision enacted dealing with consent procedures other than sterilization, this appellees raised additional claim impermissible distinction between applicable area 1975 regard procedures. Held : The should have abstained constitutional certified appropriate questions concerning meaning procedure imposes. Pp. 143-152. (a) Abstention is where unconstrued state susceptible judiciary "might avoid whole or part necessity for federal adjudication least materially change nature ofhe problem." Harrison NAACP, 360 167, 177, 79 1025, 1030, 3 1152, 1158. 146-147. (b) Here interpretation while prefers consultation permits obtain allowing without further incapable shown would her best interests, such substantially modify challenge Pacific KF135 P2 147-148. (c) discrimination due statute, also certify question extent which differ 393 F.Supp. 847, D.C., vacated remanded. S. Stephen Rosenfeld, New York City, appellants Number 75-73. Brian Atlantic Riley, Boston, Mass., 75-109, pro hac vice, special leave Roy Lucas, Washington, D. C., appellees. Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered opinion 1 litigation, operation certain provisions govern so acting, denied thSupreme Massachusetts. We hold abstained, we vacate judgment remand cases certification relevant issues law Court, abstention tribunal. 2 * On August 2, 1974, (Legislature), Governor's veto, legislation entitled "An Act protect unborn maternal health within present limits." Act, Mass. Acts Resolves chapter 706, § amended Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., 112 (Registration Certain Professions Occupations), adding §§ 12H through 12R.1 Section 12P provides: "(1) If mother less eighteen years has not married, both parents required. one mother's refuse obtained judge superior good cause shown, hearing he deems necessary. Such will require appointment guardian mother. 4 "If died deserted his family, remaining parent sufficient. their person having duties similar guardian, any had assumed care custody 5 "(2) commissioner public shall prescribe written form consent. signed proper persons given physician performing maintain permanent files. 6 "Nothing section construed abolishing limiting common rights relative purposes civil injunctive relief twelve R." 7 All nonemergency are made subject 12N.2 Violations 12N punishable 12Q fine $100 nor more $2,000.3 12R provides whose petition enjoining abortion.4 II 8 October 30, day Act,5 plaintiffs, here, filed asserting jurisdiction 28 Code KF62 1343(3), 1331, 2201, 42 1983, They sought declaratory relief, requested empaneling pursuant 2281 2284. 9 31, single Judge issued temporarily enforcement parental-consent requirement 12P, accepting request court.6 Record Doc. 2. 10 classes they purported represent are: 11 1. Baird, citizen York. 12 Parents Aid Society, Inc., not-for-profit corporation. Baird corporation director chief counselor center operates Boston purpose providing, Inter alia, services. all centers administrators who, regular recurring basis, deal minors. App. 13, 43. 13 3. Mary Moes I, II, III, IV, four 18, time filing suit, residing Each alleged she wished terminate pregnancy did wish inform either parents.7 Id., 16-18, 19-22. claimed of, willing give, abortion, but decle seek parents, 12P. 14 4. Gerald Zupnick, M.D., licensed practice He operated Aid. claims physicians see patients seeking abortions. Ibid. 15 defendants action, 75-73 (and hereinafter referred appellants), Attorneys counties Commonwealth. 16 Appellant 75-109 (hereinafter intervenor-appellant) Hunerwadel, resident female childbearing age. Hunerwadel permitted intervene defendant behalf herself others similarly situated.8 24. 17 November "Motion dismiss and/or summary judgment," arguing, "should case." 23. memorandum support motion, appellants, addition arguments, urged particularly view judicial-review provision, "was courts question." 5, Page 12. cited.Railroad commission Pullman Co., 496, 61 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941), Lake Carriers' Assn. MacMullan, 406 498, 510-511, 92 1749, 1757, 32 257, 268-269 (1972), proposition construction, until definitive been obtained. 18 hearings preliminary injunction; these later merged into trial merits. It received testimony various experts parties case, Moe I. April 28, divided vote, handed down holding void. 847. An declaring "and portions (112) insofar make specific reference thereto" void, enforcing them. 45-46; Jurisdictional Statement Pages A-33, A-34. 19 majority held, Doctor standing individually representatives proposed classes, F.Supp., 850-852,9 intervenor-appellant interests age, 849-850. found "a substantial number females forming valid consent," viewed overall "whether can restrain free exercise endeavored do so." 855. 20 following comments: 21 "1. does purport simply notified opportunity communicate minor, chosen physician, others. mention obvious fact because persistence intervenor arguing legislature could properly enact Whether us, there no reason our considering it. 22 "2. exclude intelligent applies statute's provision calling minor's own recognizes some must supplemented every order. 23 "4. provide check validity wisdom standpoint alone. Rather, independent hence potentially variance with, personal interests." 24 "The dissent seemingly reviewing Superior consider only minor. find room limited interpretation." 855 n. 10. 25 consulted, veto." 856. 26 observed " 'neither Amendment Bill Rights adultalone,' re Gault, 1967, 387 (87 1428, 1436, 527)," Ibid., and, accordingly, State cannot control first trimester adult. Re-emphasizing "the cast terms protecting . recognizing parents," concluded "(t)he comes, possess, apart right counsel guide, competing own?" 27 instant situation, unlike others, parents' often adverse specifically rejecting contrary result Planned Parenthood Central Missouri Danforth, 392 1362 (E.D.Mo.1975), 52, 2831, 788, concluded: "But if Constitutional dimension vis-a-vis child separate child's, individual outweigh protected." 857. 29 argued being joined parties, "have deprived legal process law," erred refusing appoint Ad litem finding capacity give abortion. possess constitutionally cognizable guiding upbringing children, power protection rights. 857-865. 30 Most important, however, dissent's differed markedly adopt majority. stated: 31 "I find, therefore, conceivable objection providing case condition designed receive judicial guidance counselling [*] ensures guidance, each according judgment. expressly refusal final. gives final determination. mature enough adequately about probable consequences her, then assume enter necessary permitting abortion." 864. indicated footnote reads: speculate possible interpretations 'for shown' language. There doubt whether requires parents. matter law. believe infirmities arise Rule 3:21 statute." 864 15. 33 Both appealed. noted appeal set oral argument companion cross-appeal. 423 982, 390, 46 301 (1975). III 34 Appellants attack grounds. argue, way, preserves primacy family unit reinforcing role fundamental decisions affecting members; failing join I's parents; abused discretion ; facially invalid when withstand analysis. 35 placed importance merits attention, officials charged statute.10 36 assert, first, refused basis concerns exclusively parent. Indeed, 'competing' consists assess independently, child, what serve child's interest. (I)n actual deliberation range adult making decision." Brief And court's review ensure based upon considerations operate bar 22-23. See Intervenor-Appellant 26. 37 Second, argue last paragraph 12P11 "mature minor" rule determined allowed so. file complaint authorization "(i)mportantly, Regardless consulted withheld consent." 37-38 (emphasis original); Tr. Oral Arg. 17. assert employed structured speedy nonburdensome, anonymity. 38 30; 26; 24-26. Finally, permit rendering provided "good shown." 38. "Good cause" includes showing interests. 39. 39 picture thus painted respective obtain, undue burden, consultation, further, read, fundamentally different creates veto."12 40 part, take entirely veto,13 irrebuttable presumption consent,14 or, irrationally opposed abortion.15 41 Appellees object abstention. Their unbridled veto," 49, once veto exercised, burden proving exists. forcing choose "between privacy young established Assuming broader meaning, itself makes unconstitutional, imposes delay entails. IV need go courts. As numerous occasions, "which might adjudication, lea 1152 (1959). Colorado River Cons. Dist. States, 424 800, 813-814, 1236, 1244-1245, 47 483, 495-96 (1976); Carey Sugar, 425 73, 78-79, 1208, 1210-1211, 587, 591 Kusper Pontikes, 414 51, 54-55, 94 303, 306, 260, 264-265 (1973); U.S., S.Ct., L.Ed.2d, 268-269; Zwickler Koota, 389 241, 249, 88 391, 396, 444, 450 (1967); Railroad 312 (1941). 43 accept appellees' assertion inevitably interpret create act impose burdens 44 today struck created veto. 72-75, 2842-2844. At same unless unduly concerned directed toward minors, whom unquestionably greater risks inability Without adult, cf. Doe Rampton, 366 189 (Utah 1973), think clear litigation adoption "at problem" presented. 1030. 45 consideration factors mentioned above, serious suggested, unanticipated interference doctor-patient relationship, now determine.16 Nor determine point becomes burdensome. sufficient offered clearly would. absence impossible define precisely raise, This come fore advent subsequent sterilization.17 Parenthood, forbidden. 80-81, 2846-2847. constitutionality depend degree justification defined, established. circumstances, stay hand directly note adopted prompt resolution. Rules Sup.Jud.Ct. (1976). remarked equitable 'the expense application doctrine rise.' 509, quoting England Medical Examiners, 375 411, 418, 84 461, 466, 440, 446 (1964). 54, 264. noted, availability adequate procedure18 "does, course, long run save energy, resources helps build cooperive federalism." Lehman Brothers Schein, 416 386, 1741, 1744, 215, 220 (1974). utilized past, appeals. cited therein 390 nn. 6, 1743, 219. 48 speed resolution manifest. effect, irretrievable events, consequences, occur. Although mean intimate improper possible, greatly simplifies Further, light disapproval lower courts, called enforce most barrier. Insofar ceases become total denial access rather cost reduced desirability remedy accordingly increased. V therefore inquiry complaint, perhaps means, inappropriate procedural complied new followed 50 vacated, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 51 ordered. Prior passage already existence 12I 112. These added 1973, 173, 521, respectively. former printing physician's name prescription blank, latter one's participate sterilization procedure, damages discipline exercising right. pre-existing repealed. Consequently, legislative oversight, two statutes denominated 112, chapter. opinion, legislation. "Section 12N. Except emergency requiring immediate sections & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions (before weeks) J (24 weeks more) forth during thirteenth week hospital duly authorized facilities general surgery. "Except obstetrical services." pertinent part: "Any willfully O punished hundred dollars thousand dollars." 12R. attorney P law, Q." Unless declared referendum petition, passed effect "earlier ninety days law." Mass.Const. Amend., Article 48, Referendum, pt. (1963). Because injunction subsequently court, A-34; 45-46, yet effective. originally filed, named affidavits status attached. 16-18. executed IV. plaintiffs' December 9, refers Moes. Similarly, action. 849, record disclose how plaintiff. event, dismissed suit failure adduce evidence supporting standing, 849 appealed ruling. way concern us here. terminated (through 850 4) moots case. Roe Wade, 410 113, 124-125, 93 705, 712, 147, 160-161 (1973). Also Kathleen Roth situated Doe, anonymous intervenors except facts show standing. 850. Technically, intervenors, appealed, well classified 10(4). status, affect disposition cases. appellee "In unassailable plaintiffs pass Baird's standing." 851. suggested suggest Nevertheless, full arguments favor asserted issue. Cf. Wisconsin Constantineau, 400 433, 437, 91 507, 510, 515, 519 (1971). nature, 500-501, 645, 971, 974-975 caused State's interpretation. Baggett Bullitt, 377 360, 379, 1316, 1326, 377, injury (if any) coming forward espouse. orders challenged portion never gone effect. made, beyond put parties. appear Sua sponte. supra. 413, 463, 443 Nothing generally 788; Poe Gerstein, 517 Federal Reporter, 2nd 787 (CA5 1975), docketed, 75-713; Jackson Guste, Civ. Action 74-2425 (E.D.La. Jan. 26, 1976); Zimmerman, 405 534 (M.D.Pa.1975); Exon, CV 75-L-146 (Neb. Oct. 8, 1975); Fitzpatrick, 401 554 (E.D.Pa.1975); Foe Vanderhoof, 947 (Colo.1975); Gary-Northwest Indiana Women's Services Bowen, H-74-289 (N.D.Ind. 3, Wolfe Schroering, 388 631 (W.D.Ky.1974); Koome, Wash.2d 901, 530 260 "(The can) force sixteen year old seventeen wants grandchild." 33. "(T)he constitutes decree competent contravenes line irrebutable presumptions violative process." 42. exception immature, emotionally upset parents." 46. stated Supra, heated debate among strong indication ambiguities contains. everything conformity title: Boehning Employees Assn., 168, 148 enactment interpreted arguably merely codification 24-39. legislation, 564, approved Aug. "Chapter Laws hereby striking out 12F, 335 acts 1971, inserting place thereof section: 12F. "No dentist liable parent, spouse patient, examination treatment, blood transfusions, treatment endanger life, limb, mental well-being patient. dental (i) widowed, divorced; (ii) child; (iii) member armed forces; (iv) believes pregnant; (v) living managing financial affairs; (vi) reasonably himself suffering contact disease defined dangerous six eleven; provided, relates diagnosis disease. "Consent granted subparagraphs (vi), inclusive, sterilization. disaffirmance minority. authorize notwithstanding payment rendered agreed pay care. dentist, hospital, clinic infirmary liable, civilly criminally, obtaining render if, rendered, facility: relied faith representations legally able section; "All information records kept connection consents thereto accordance confidential released When attending said life limb endangered, notify foster notification." inadequate. apparent difficulty. 15, citing Hendrickson Sears, 495 513 (CA1 1974).

Classification Label: 8