The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to take up a case over Montana’s abortion law. Under the law, parents would have to give consent for a minor to get an abortion.
The law, which was put in place in 2013 but never took effect because the state’s supreme court ruled it unconstitutional, says doctors cannot perform abortions on patients under 18 without written and notarized consent from a parent. It also stipulates any doctor who does will face both fines and jail time.
It does, however, offer an avenue for minors to “bypass” the parental consent requirement by convincing a court that they are mature and informed enough to make the decision themselves.
According to Planned Parenthood, Montana requires minors under 16 years old to inform one parent they are getting an abortion before proceeding.
What are the details of the case?
American health care
Montana requires minors under 16 years old to inform one parent they’re having an abortion before getting one.
Planned Parenthood of Montana originally challenged the law, called the Consent Act, when it went into effect, saying minors have the constitutional right to privacy. State lawmakers argued that parents have a constitutional right to make decisions concerning their children’s health care.
The state supreme court ruled the law unconstitutional in August 2024, saying Montana’s state constitution offers broader protections for abortion than the federal law does by giving minors the same rights as adults.
“Minors, like adults, have a fundamental right to privacy, which includes procreative autonomy and making medical decisions affecting his or her bodily integrity and health in partnership with a chosen health care provider free from governmental interest,” it said in its ruling.
After the state supreme court ruled the law was unconstitutional, it was sent to the United States Supreme Court for review.
In its appeal, the state of Montana said, “Parents’ authority extends to decisions about medical care. Because parents are presumed to act in their child’s best interest, the state may not ‘inject itself into the private realm of the family [and] question the ability of that parent to make the best decisions concerning the rearing of [their] children’ unless it has a reason to believe the parent is unfit.”
In their opposition filing, Planned Parenthood’s lawyers argued Montana state officials appear to be suggesting “that the existence of parental rights is the beginning and end of the inquiry – that so long as there is a federal due process right of parents to participate in decisions concerning their minor child’s medical care, there is no need to consider what other rights might be in play.”
What did the US Supreme Court say?
On Thursday, July 3, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Montana’s petition to review the state supreme court’s decision.
While they did not give a reason why they declined to take up the case, conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas released a statement saying the case provided a “poor vehicle” for questioning parents’ versus minors’ constitutional rights.
However, the Supreme Court did say the decision not to take up the case should not be taken as a “rejection of the argument” that was raised by the case – meaning they could take up a similar case in the future.
