Court Opinion

ID: 9686539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:54:19.428993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:19.894900
License: Public Domain

OPINION
ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.

Introduction

This is the third time that this class action involving the constitutionality of a Massachusetts statute defining procedures that must be followed before a minor can obtain an abortion,1 has required a full *999opinion.2 It has been extensively prepared and briefed. Defendants3 commence their most recent brief with this statement.
“With the exception of the Watergate scandal and the Viet Nam war, no issue has divided the country and its governmental officials more dramatically than the debate over the propriety of physicians’ performing procedures to induce the termination of pregnancies, or, as they are commonly referred to, abortions. The sparks of this controversy have fallen on all levels of government and flamed into judicial conflagrations involving additional and difficult issues of federalism, the legal process, and the relations among the state, the family, and the family’s individual members.”
Although we might question how far the Watergate scandal divided the country, and we are unaware of any body of judicial disagreements warranting the description of conflagrations, we agree with the rest of this statement. We do not construe it as an admonition directed to our personal conduct. However, we do accept it as a guide for ourselves in choosing the path we should tread. At the same time, we believe that the Massachusetts legislature should govern itself with the same understanding. When dealing with relatively unimportant and uncontroversial matters the state can paint with a broad brush. When entering an area of highly cherished rights and principles, where the sparks, to use defendants’ word, are charged because of basic, conflicting and deeply held beliefs, the state should proceed with corresponding care. We do not find that it has done so. Nor do we agree with defendants that this is a case of parties seeking relief for overbreadth improperly affecting others, not before the court. Cf. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 1976, 427 U.S. 50, 59, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310; Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 1973, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830. Plaintiffs are asserting defects in their own right.
The first question is what the statute means. Basically, it requires a minor under 18, unless married, widowed or divorced, who desires an abortion, to obtain the written consent of both parents, unless unavailable, and failing that, the approval of a judge of the superior court, upon a finding of “good cause.” Although there are some additional questions, there were three principal areas of disagreement as to the more precise statutory meaning; the right of parents, in withholding consent, to consider interests other than the minor’s, i. e., their own, and that of the family as a whole (parents’ rights); the power of the court to order an abortion without the parents’ knowledge in appropriate instances (parents’ bypass); the power of the court to override the informed consent of a mature minor (judicial override). At the original hearing defendants and all members of the court agreed that the statute recognized parents’ rights as well as the minor’s, and forbade any parent bypass. Our dissenting brother felt, mistakenly, as it turned out, that the informed consent of a mature minor could not be overridden by the superior court. The court majority considered the statute unconstitutional in any event, and rejected his suggestion that we refer its meaning to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
On appeal to the Supreme Court defendants changed their position in a number of respects. They abandoned parents’ rights; they asserted that parents must regard only *1000the minor’s interests in considering whether to consent, and asserted, further, that the statute permitted court proceedings without the parents’ knowledge if in the minor’s best interests. Finally, they agreed with our dissenting brother that the statute recognized the mature minor rule and that there could be no judicial override in such event. The Supreme Court, without reaching the constitutional questions, but on the basis of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s interpretation, which, it said, deserved special consideration, 428 U.S. at 143, 96 S.Ct. 2857, stated that, so read, the Massachusetts statute might differ fundamentally from the Missouri statute struck down in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 1976, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S.Ct. 2831, 49 L.Ed.2d 788. Accordingly, it instructed us to refer the matter of construction to the Massachusetts court. Bellotti v. Baird, 1976, 428 U.S. 132, 96 S.Ct. 2857, 49 L.Ed.2d 844.
Hypothesizing the interpretation that defendants urged upon it, the Supreme Court said,
“The picture thus painted by the respective appellants is of a statute that prefers parental consultation and consent, but that permits a mature minor capable of giving informed consent to obtain, without undue burden, an order permitting the abortion without parental consultation, and, further, permits even a minor incapable of giving informed consent to obtain an order without parental consultation where there is a showing that the abortion would be in her best interests. The statute, as thus read, would be fundamentally different from a statute that creates a ‘parental veto.’ ” 428 U.S. at 145, 96 S.Ct. at 2865.4
In other words, the Court envisaged a mature minor rule, with no power in the superior court to override, and which permitted parents’ bypass altogether if the court found an informed consent, and even as to an immature minor if the court found that an abortion without her parents’ knowledge would be in her best interests.
Pursuant to our instructions, we certified nine questions to the Massachusetts court and, in the meantime, continued the stay of the statute’s enforcement. Baird II. Thereafter we received our answers. Baird v. Attorney General, 1977 Mass. A. S. 96, 360 N.E.2d 288. The Massachusetts court there rejected the concept of parents’ rights, holding that parents may consider only the minor’s personal interests in deciding whether to consent. However, the court also construed the statute to be in some respects radically different from that envisaged by the Supreme Court. The court held that there could be no parents’ bypass in any case. Further, it held that the statute eliminated abortions altogether from the mature minor rule. We address the constitutional issues raised by those holdings in that order.
1. Parents’ Bypass: The statute’s absolute requirement of parental notification.
The Massachusetts court determined that the legislature was “explicit in stating that a judge should pass on an application for a consent order only after one or both parents ■have declined to consent to the abortion.” 360 N.E.2d at 294. Faced with the loss of this alleviating feature, defendants now take the position that there are not enough cases calling for an exception to mandatory consultations.5
*1001Defendants commence with a number of mistaken assumptions. In the first place, they apparently misread the language of the Supreme Court’s opinion, quoted ante, and think the Court was contemplating parents’ bypass only when there was affirmative proof that this would be in the minor’s best interests. We read the Court’s language as indicating it understood defendants’ contention to be that bypass would be in order in every case that the superior court found informed consent by a mature minor. The evidence warrants our findings that many, perhaps a large majority of 17-year olds are capable of informed consent, as are a not insubstantial number of 16-year olds, and some even younger.
In addition, the Court recognized that even if incapable of informed consent, it may be to a minor’s best interest that the hearing be held, and the abortion be performed, without her parents’ knowledge. The immature minor may be, in fact, the least capable of dealing with a hostile family situation. We reject defendants’ singular contention that the issue of immature minors is not before us.6
Finally, in an apparent attempt to minimize the importance of the statute’s defects, defendants’ post-trial brief contains a graphic diagram prepared by counsel, divided into trimesters, and again subdivided, from which they conclude that plaintiffs’ total complaint relates to only “one-twenty-fourth of the situations which the statute encompasses.” Not only does this fractionalization disregard the points just made, but it overlooks the fact that a minor’s possible need of an abortion without her parents’ knowledge is not limited to the first trimester. However, even were the issues confined to the first trimester, the great majority of abortions occur in the earlier months. Defendants’ giving equal numerical weight to each trimester is fanciful.
Coming to the merits, and passing for the moment the separate issue of mature minors, there are a variety of recognized reasons why it would be to a minor’s best interests for one or both of her parents to be kept in ignorance of her pregnancy. Parents, physically or emotionally unwell, may be injured by the shock, thus causing the minor deep feelings of guilt. Some parents are child abusers; others at least may become actively hostile on such disclosure. Defendants concede, and the evidence shows, that an appreciable number of parents are not supportive. These include not only those who would inflict physical harm, but parents who would insist on an undesired marriage, or on continuance of the pregnancy as punishment. We may suspect, in addition, that there are parents who would obstruct, and perhaps altogether prevent, the minor’s right to go to court. This would seem but a normal reaction of persons who hold strong anti-abortion convictions.
The Massachusetts court conceded that there is no penalty for improperly withheld consent. From the parents’ standpoint, the court was correct, but from the minor’s, manifestly it is not. We begin with the testimony of defendants’ expert that a substantial number of minors would refuse to consult with their parents under any circumstances. Assuming, however, that they did consult and that the parents improperly refused to consent, the penalty borne by the minor — the burden of seeking a court order — is a heavy one. Plaintiffs’ expert credibly and without contradiction testified that court proceedings over such a personal matter, even if conducted in the most benign manner, would be “severely detrimental to a teenager, particularly since she had just met with her parents’ disapproval, which is difficult enough.” Further, she credibly testified that many minors would not go to court, especially if it had to be against her parents, but rather would resort *1002to illegal and frequently dangerous abortions. But assuming again in the statute’s favor that the minor would initiate the proceedings, defendants’ own expert expressed the opinion that if she did go to court and was successful, it would be likely to destroy what was left of the family relationship.7 The minor, accordingly, is in a no-win situation. If she loses the judicial proceedings, it will be a personal blow, and scarcely a redemption of the ill feeling and tension that undoubtedly resulted from her parents’ refusal of consent and her taking them to court. If she wins, according to defendants’ own expert she is likely to find herself in an even worse position.
On this basis plaintiffs contend with some persuasiveness that the entire concept of a court proceeding to remedy the unconstitutionality of the parental veto, as struck down in Danforth, is but an ignis fatuus, and itself imposes too great a burden upon the exercise of the minor’s rights. We do not reach this issue, but we do hold that it is an improper burden in those cases where a court, if given free rein, would find that it was to the minor’s best interests that one or both of her parents not be informed, but is forbidden by the statute to make this decision. In remanding the case to us the Supreme Court said,
“We do not accept appellees’ assertion that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts inevitably will interpret the statute so as to . . . require the superior court to act other than in the best interests of the minor . . . .” 428 U.S. at 147, 96 S.Ct. at 2866.
However, in reading the statute as requiring parental notification in every instance, the Massachusetts court has done precisely that.
Defendants would answer this by claiming that this defect is not “real and substantial,” Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., ante, 427 U.S. at 60, 96 S.Ct. 2440, or “substantial ... in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep,” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, ante, 413 U.S. at 615, 93 S.Ct. at 2918. However, in another connection, but equally applicable here, their brief refers to “legislative recognition of the unfortunate fact that parents are not always supportive of their pregnant daughters and may, the evidence suggests infrequently, refuse to consent to the performance of abortion surgery although the surgery is in their child’s best interests, or mistreat her in other ways.” If there is legislative recognition of this unfortunate fact in one connection, there is no reason why there should not be in another. In terms of the direct concern of this statute, the exact number of minors who are injured is unimportant. Particularly is this so when there is no practical reason for not protecting them. Practicality, in some cases, may justify overbreadth, but since, under the Massachusetts court’s holding, the superior court in any event must determine the minor’s best interests in the light of all her personal circumstances, it opens no new areas to inquire into her family situation.
We add that it is peculiarly incorrect, and inappropriate, for defendants to express alarm by saying that “plaintiffs’ over-breadth claim 'is an unwarranted use of an engine of destruction whose acceptance would destroy the entire statute.” If the statute is overbroad because it fails to protect the interests which are its sole justifi*1003cation, there is a simple solution — the legislature can remedy the defect.
We cannot leave this matter without commenting briefly on the superlatives that intervenor Hunerwadel attached to the value of requiring parental notification in order to obtain parental support, and to permit parental guidance. We in no way minimize the importance of these matters.8 Parents have many years, however, to offer guidance, and to indicate support. However surprised an individual parent may be to find a daughter pregnant, given the present high incidence of teenage pregnancy the possibility seems too great for concerned parents to disregard until it happens. If the family relationship is such that communication has not been attempted, or successful, before the pregnancy, we agree with the expert who doubted the efficacy of a last-minute, state-compelled consultation. What is more important, if the minor, too, doubts it, a statute that requires her to go to her parents as a precondition to going to court will not tie her hands. Rather, it will lead her to the illegal abortionists that defendants rightly decry, or to other dangerous activity. The minor may, of course, be mistaken, but we do not believe the answer to this is a judicial proceeding preconditioned on her finding out, for the die has then been cast.
2. Judicial Override: The mature minor and unequal protection.
Not only under this statute must every minor, irrespective of her achievement of maturity sufficient to reach an informed consent, notify her parents and seek their consent before going to court, but she must submit to the court’s decision if it does not conform to her own. Defendants represented to the Supreme Court that Massachusetts recognized the mature minor rule and that if the court found an informed consent, it would proceed to issue the order: The Massachusetts court held that defendants had misread the statute; that Massachusetts did have the mature minor rule, but that the statute rejected it with respect to abortions. It went on to state that, but for the statute, the mature minor rule • would permit an informed consent “where the best interests of a minor will be served by not notifying . . . her parents.” 360 N.E.2d at 296. Thus the statute not only requires the parents to be notified, but deprives the minor of the right to decide even when the court has found her mature and that her decision was informed. Instead, the state, acting through the judge, substitutes its own view. It does so even in light of the testimony, which we credit, that in addition to the loss of her rights, it is a highly traumatic experience for a mature minor to be refused a desired abortion.
A minor has a basic constitutional right to an abortion. Roe v. Wade, ante; Carey v. Population Services International, 1977, 431 U.S. 678, 692-94, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 52 L.Ed.2d 675; Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, ante, 428 U.S. at 74-75, 96 S.Ct. 2831. The state’s power to limit this right should extend only to protect the minor from the special consequences of her minority — immaturity, and the lack of informed understanding. Instead, the statute imposes upon the minor the very disability which has been found not to exist, and does so uniquely in the area in which the Court has determined she has constitutional rights.
An account of the Massachusetts law as to mature minors is fully set forth in the opinion of the Massachusetts court, and need not be repeated. Except for sterilization, a far more serious and far-reaching procedure, abortion is the only form of surgery to which a mature minor may not consent, although the evidence shows that many other forms are far more complicated *1004and- dangerous. Defendants, in dwelling upon the dangers of abortion, proceed as if the only issue were to abort or not to abort, neglecting the fact that the choice necessarily involves a further alternative. The evidence fully supports the conclusion stated in Roe v. Wade, ante, 410 U.S. 113 at 149, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147, that continued pregnancy and childbirth involve greater risks than a properly performed first trimester abortion. Nor are we speaking only as to physical dangers. The same comparative findings with respect to abortion as against continued pregnancy apply to the psychological risks as to the physical. We find no reasonable basis for Massachusetts distinguishing between a minor and an adult, given a finding of maturity and informed consent.9 Even the Massachusetts court stated that this is an area particularly appropriate for the mature minor role. 360 N.E.2d at 296. We regard the legislative exception to be both an undue burden in the due process sense, and a discriminatory denial of equal protection.
3. Formal overbreadth.
Not only has the statute, with the exception of parents’ rights, been found to possess none of the features which defendants persuaded the Court might distinguish it from the Missouri statute condemned in Danforth, but we believe it improperly suggests the existence of parents’ rights. Defendants, realizing that extending rights to parents that may conflict with a minor’s own interest was improper under Roe v. Wade, abandoned the position that the statute recognized them in their arguments before the Supreme Court and the Massachusetts court, and the latter, pursuant to the need to construe the statute constitutionally, accepted that construction. We agree with our dissenting brother that, generally, a limiting construction of an otherwise unconstitutional state statute by a state court is read into the statute, and can save it, if the construction itself is constitutional. In this case, however, involving as it does a most sensitive area, where the statute will be read, and applied, primarily by laymen, we think that a limiting judicial construction is insufficient to cure the impermissible chill which its excessively broad language creates. It is only reasonable to anticipate that many parents, accustomed to think in terms of parents’ rights, will find them included for the very reasons originally argued by the defendants and accepted by us. Clearly they will do so if they are unaware of the limitations which the court read into the statute. We do not share our brother’s optimism that every parent who knows of the statute will be equally cognizant of the court’s interpretation. Such knowledge is a legal presumption, not a factual one. Moreover, it is likely that some, even if aware of the court’s opinion, will choose the language of the legislature over judicial limitations they regard as an unwarranted usurpation. We may take judicial notice, from public reaction we have seen to Roe v. Wade, that an appreciable segment of the public holds such views.
In light of the very heavy burden that the statutorily required judicial proceeding imposes upon a minor, we regard it essential that the limited scope of the issue confronting parents, when considering whether to consent, be brought home as forcefully, and precisely, as possible, to minimize the incidence of improper refusals. Since there is no justification for the statute’s failure to do this, the shadow it casts is an undue burden upon the minor’s rights. See Maher v. Roe, ante, 432 U.S. at 473, 97 S.Ct. 2376; Bellotti v. Baird, ante, 428 U.S. at 147, 96 S.Ct. 2857. Arguably, it is a welcomed shadow. Whatever may have been the legislature’s original intent, we observe that it re-enacted the statute, without amendment, in 1977 Mass.Acts ch. 397, not only after the Supreme Court had indicated what might pass constitutional muster, but after the Massachusetts court had disclosed this apparent overbreadth, and we had commented, in Baird II, on its chilling effect. *1005The statute is a prominent public issue, and we cannot think the legislature was unaware of its judicial course. Under these circumstances it may be thought that the legislature prefers the chilling effect rather than to have the statute expressed in “terms that the ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense can sufficiently understand.” United States Civil Service Commission v. National Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 1973, 413 U.S. 548, 579, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 2897, 37 L.Ed.2d 796. This, in turn, evokes the statement of the Court in Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Hous. Dev. Corp., 1977, 429 U.S. 252, 265-66, 97 S.Ct. 555, 563, 50 L.Ed.2d 450, “When there is proof that a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision, . . . judicial deference is no longer justified.” This response seems particularly warranted when the overbreadth serves no other purpose.

Judicial Repair.

The Massachusetts court, although recognizing that its function was to construe the statute and not to determine its constitutionality, did read a substantial limitation into a portion of the language in an effort to make the parental consent provision constitutional. The court did not, however, read into the statute the exceptions the Supreme Court had indicated would make a fundamental difference and might save it from constitutional infirmity. Instead, in these respects it read the statute the other way, but purported to give it a chameleon-like ability to adjust to whatever color should ultimately be necessary to protect it. While saying that the statute “is explicit in stating that a judge should pass on an application . . . only after one or both parents have declined to consent,” 360 N.E.2d at 294, nonetheless this requirement is subject to alteration.
“If the Supreme Court concludes that we have impermissibly assigned a greater role to the parents than we should or that we have otherwise burdened the minor’s choice unconstitutionally, we add as a general principle that we would have construed the statute to conform to that interpretation.” Id. at 292,
“[The statute] must be construed to require as much parental consultation as is permissible constitutionally. In such a situation, the judge will have to determine whether circumstances exist which make prior parental consultation impermissible constitutionally.” Id. at 294-95.
How the judge is to have the opportunity to make such a determination, much less how a minor seeking an order will know he can do so, in the face of explicit language saying he cannot, the court did not explain.
Again, the court said, “The Legislature has left no' room to apply a mature minor rule where an unmarried minor seeks an abortion without parental consultation.” Id. at 294.
However, this, too, can be changed, “[if] a contrary conclusion is compelled constitutionally.” Id. at 293.
This perceived adaptability presents a number of problems. It is commonly said that a statute is to be given a constitutional construction “if fairly possible,” Crowell v. Benson, 1932, 285 U.S. 22, 62, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598, “when a limiting construction could be placed,” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, ante, 413 U.S. at 613, 93 S.Ct. at 2916. Here something more is involved than construing language. The Massachusetts court, in addition to contradicting its specific terms, suggests reading into the statute affirmative provisions made out of nothing but a generally announced purpose to pass constitutional muster.10 In so doing, the court seems to have found the ultimate remedy for all constitutional infirmities. If a statute which, in terms, requires parental consultation without exception, can be “construed to require as much parental consultation as is permissible constitutionally,” here, at once, is an instant *1006cure, both for overbreadth, and for lack of standards. Regardless of whether a statute says too much, or too little, so long as the legislature intended it to be constitutional, when it comes before a court it will be appropriately rewritten. With due respect, we cannot believe this to be possible. Cf. United States v. Reese, 1875, 92 U.S. 214, 221, 23 L.Ed. 563.
The situation is even more undesirable. Although the statute is not ours, the Massachusetts court has, in effect, given us the coloring-book. The Supreme Court remanded the case for construction by the Massachusetts court because “in the absence of an authoritative construction, it is impossible to define precisely the constitutional question presented.” 428 U.S. at 148, 96 S.Ct. at 2866. Now, apparently, the question supplies the answers. This is an approach which, so far as we can ascertain, is unique. While it is ultimately, of course, for the Supreme Court, we must doubt our authority to fix terms of a state statute contrary to the prima facie interpretation given it by the state court. See United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 1971, 402 U.S. 363, 369, 91 S.Ct. 1400, 28 L.Ed.2d 822.
We reaffirm our decision that the statute is unconstitutional and is to be permanently enjoined. Plaintiffs are entitled to costs, including recovery of costs paid as a result of the previous appeal, lost because of defendants’ mistaken advocacy.

. The entire statute has been printed in other opinions. The section presently pertinent is Mass.G.L. c. 112, § 12S.
“(1) If the mother is less than eighteen years of age and has not married, the consent of both the mother and her parents is required. If one or both of the mother’s parents refuse such consent, consent may be obtained by order of a judge of the superior court for good cause shown, after such hearing as he deems necessary. Such a hearing will not require the appointment of a guardian for the mother.
“If one of the parents has died or has deserted his or her family, consent by the remaining parent is sufficient. If both parents have died or have deserted their family, consent of the mother’s guardian or other person having duties similar to a guardian, or any person who had assumed the care and custody of the mother is sufficient.”

. For our prior opinions enjoining the statute’s operation see Baird v. Bellotti, D.Mass., 1975, 393 F.Supp. 847, (Baird I,) Baird v. Bellotti, D.Mass., 1977, 428 F.Supp. 854, (Baird II.) Baird I contains many basic facts, including identification of the plaintiffs, standing, and justiciability, not repeated herein.

. Defendants are Francis X. Bellotti, Attorney General of the Commonwealth, and the District Attorneys of the several Massachusetts counties. Jane Hunerwadel, mother of minor daughters, was permitted to intervene as the representative of parents of Massachusetts minors who might wish to obtain abortions without parental knowledge or consent. In addition, we accepted Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Crittenden Hastings Clinic, and Preterm, in a status something more than amici because of reservations about the adequacy of plaintiffs’ representation.

. In referring to Baird in Maher v. Roe, 1977, 432 U.S. 464, 473, 97 S.Ct. 2376, 53 L.Ed.2d 484, the Court omitted part of the material in this paragraph. Defendants contend that by so doing the Court has limited the Baird decision and, consequently, the issues before us. We cannot think Baird was intended to be overruled or modified by an abbreviated summary, and we mention this point only because of the stress defendants lay upon it.

. Alternatively, defendants contend that “the proper decision would determine that the statute is valid on its face and leave for individual or aggregate ‘as applied’ litigation the resolution of problems affecting individual ‘mature minors.’ ” We regard this argument as specious. Unless we act, the statute will have to be “applied” by the superior court as the Massachusetts court has held it is to be applied, viz., by refusing to take jurisdiction until the parents have been notified.

. Defendants also contend that plaintiffs waived the subject of immature minors. It is not clear that they did so, but, if they did, it was a breach of their duty as representatives of the classes that at least Dr. Zupnick purported to represent, and we are not bound thereby. It was for such reasons that we gave special stature to the parties we would ordinarily have considered only amici.

. “It seems to me that when affairs have reached this point where the relationship between the parents and the child have become ' a courtroom issue that I would have a lot of misgivings about the validity of the relationship between the parents and the child and how capable they are of being valid support for this child in the future.
“The consequences, if the decision was made in favor of the child, for quality family relationships are not good. The need for support on the part of the child would be abandoned at this point and the child would be abandoned at this point and her need for support would be great . . .
This last sentence may have been inartistically expressed, or inaccurately transcribed, but, however it was said, we reject defendants’ contention that their witness made “clear it is not judicial intervention but rather the underlying family crisis which prompts his dim prognosis.” To the contrary, it is apparent that he felt a judicial proceeding, particularly if successful, might be the final blow.

. We also note that Justice White’s opinion in Danforth referred to parental consent as “the traditional way by which States have sought to protect children from their own immature and improvident decisions.” .428 U.S. at 95, 96 S.Ct. at 2853. The Justice was speaking, however, in terms of a statute under which parents made the final decision. Where there is to be a judicial determination, it would be counter-productive to include the parents when the court finds that their knowledge and presence would be detrimental.

. Nor, parenthetically, has any reason been advanced for attaching to abortion the special requirement of dual consent by both parents. Rather, this provision seems a further manifestation of our originally found intent to recognize parents’ rights.

. Although the Massachusetts court, and the defendants, speak of severability, such action is not severance. Severability is a process of striking out, not of insertion or rewriting. See United States v. Reese, 1875, 92 U.S. 214, 221, 23 L.Ed. 563.