Bellotti v. Baird (1979)

Last updated
Bellotti v. Baird
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 27, 1979
Decided July 2, 1979
Full case nameBellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al. v. Baird, et al.
Citations443 U.S. 622 ( more )
99 S. Ct. 3035; 61 L. Ed. 2d 797; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 17
Case history
Prior Bellotti v. Baird , 428 U.S. 132 (1976); on remand, Baird v. Bellotti, 428 F. Supp. 854 (D. Mass. 1977); 450 F. Supp. 997 (D. Mass. 1978); probable jurisdiction noted, 439 U.S. 925(1978).
SubsequentRehearing denied, 444 U.S. 887(1979).
Holding
States may require parental notification before a minor may obtain an abortion, but must provide an alternative procedure to parental approval.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
PluralityPowell, joined by Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist
ConcurrenceRehnquist
ConcurrenceStevens (in judgment only), joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
DissentWhite
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979), is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled 8-1 that teenagers do not have to secure parental consent to obtain an abortion.

Contents

The Court elaborated on its parental consent decision of 1976. [1] It implies that states may be able to require a pregnant, unmarried minor to obtain parental consent to an abortion if the state law provides an alternative procedure to parental approval, such as letting the minor seek a state judge's approval instead. The plurality opinion declined to extend the full right to minors to seek and obtain an abortion, which was granted to adult women in Roe v. Wade . [2] The Court rejected the extension to minors by placing emphasis on the especially vulnerable nature of children, their "inability to make critical decisions in an informed and mature manner; and the importance of the parental role in child rearing." [2] [3] Ironically, the plurality opinion allows a judge to determine that a pregnant minor is unable to make critical decisions regarding a fetus and must instead become a parent—thereby forcing the minor to make critical decisions regarding another child. [4]

Consent must be obtained from the parent(s) for a minor to have a nonemergency abortion and the parent(s) must know about the judicial proceedings, unless no parent(s) are available. [5] If the judge decides the minor is mature and making an informed and capable decision, he can still deny the abortion based on his own decision. [5]

Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., joined by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, Justice Potter Stewart, and Justice William Rehnquist argued there are three reasons why children aren't like adults: the vulnerability of children, the lack of critical decision making, and reliance on parents guidance for their children upbringing. [5]

Justice John P. Stevens, joined by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., Justice Thurgood Marshall, and Justice Harry Blackmun, concluded that the Massachusetts statute was unconstitutional because first it allows for the court to deny the abortion despite the courts decision on the minor's maturity. [5] Second, consent was required in every case without giving the minor an option to an independent case to prove she was mature, leading to an 'absolute third-party veto'. [5]

If a state requires a pregnant minor to obtain consent of one or both parents, another alternative option must be available for the minor to receive the abortion. [5] The alternative process has four requirements: (1) the minor is permitted to demonstrate her maturity and informed decision making on having the abortion without parental consent, (2) if the minor does not prove maturity, she has the ability to convince the judge that the abortion would be the best decision for her (3) the minor must remain anonymous, and (4) the process must be expedited to ensure the abortion will be possible to obtain. [6]

Justice Rehnquist concurred on stare decisis grounds while continuing to oppose the constitutional right to an abortion.

See also

Related Research Articles

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protected a right to have an abortion. The decision struck down many abortion laws, and caused an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. The decision also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the restoration of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision on upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling an abortion. The Supreme Court in Webster allowed for states to legislate in an aspect that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe v. Wade (1973).

Emancipation of minors is a legal mechanism by which a minor before attaining the age of majority is freed from control by their parents or guardians, and the parents or guardians are freed from responsibility for their child. Minors are normally considered legally incompetent to enter into contracts and to handle their own affairs. Emancipation overrides that presumption and allows emancipated children to legally make certain decisions on their own behalf.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gillick competence</span> Medical legal term

Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a facial challenge to New Hampshire's parental notification abortion law. The First Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement was proper. The Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded the case, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent. Instead, the Court only addressed the issue of remedy, holding that invalidating a statute in its entirety "is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."

City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed its abortion rights jurisprudence. In an opinion by Lewis F. Powell Jr., the Court struck down several provisions of an Ohio abortion law, including portions found to be unconstitutionally vague.

Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case that dealt with whether a state law may require notification of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion. The law in question provided a judicial alternative.

Many jurisdictions have laws applying to minors and abortion. These parental involvement laws require that one or more parents consent or be informed before their minor daughter may legally have an abortion.

Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case on abortion. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a Missouri statute regulating abortion. The Court upheld the right to have an abortion, declaring unconstitutional the statute's requirement of prior written consent from a parent or a spouse.

Bellotti v. Baird can refer to

Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Massachusetts law requiring parental consent to a minor's abortion, under the provision that "if one or both of the [minor]'s parents refuse... consent, consent may be obtained by order of a judge... for good cause shown." The decision was unanimous, and the opinion of the Court was written by Harry Blackmun. The law in question "permits a minor capable of giving informed consent to obtain a court order allowing abortion without parental consultation, and further permits even a minor incapable of giving informed consent to obtain an abortion order without parental consultation where it is shown that abortion would be in her best interests."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion law in the United States by state</span> Termination of pregnancy in states of the United States

The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy with few exceptions, others permit it up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, while others allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions on the procedure may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, requirements that patients be shown an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, mandatory waiting periods, and counselling requirements.

The mature minor doctrine is a rule of law found in the United States and Canada accepting that an unemancipated minor patient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health care treatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so. It is now generally considered a form of patients rights; formerly, the mature minor rule was largely seen as protecting health care providers from criminal and civil claims by parents of minors at least 15.

Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that citizens do not have Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute in federal court unless they possess a "direct stake" in the outcome.

As of 2023, abortion in Indiana is legal up to 20 weeks; an attempted ban that was scheduled to take effect on August 1 has been placed on hold due to further legal challenges. In the wake of the 2022 Dobbs Supreme Court ruling, abortion in Indiana remained legal despite Indiana lawmakers voting in favor of a near-total abortion ban on August 5, 2022. Governor Eric Holcomb signed this bill into law the same day. The new law became effective on September 15, 2022. But on September 22, 2022, Special Judge Kelsey B. Hanlon of the Monroe County Circuit Court granted a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the ban. Her ruling allows the state's previous abortion law, which allows abortions up to 20 weeks after fertilization with exceptions for rape and incest, to remain in effect.

Abortion in Massachusetts is legal up to at least the 24th week of pregnancy, with exceptions allowing later termination of pregnancies in some circumstances. Modern Massachusetts is considered one of the most pro-choice states in the country: a PEW research poll finding that 74% of residents supported the right to an abortion in all or most cases, a higher percentage than any other state. Marches supporting abortion rights took place as part of the #StoptheBans movement in May 2019.

Abortion in Minnesota is legal until fetal viability. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled the Minnesota Constitution conferred a right to an abortion in 1995 and the Minnesota Legislature passed and the Governor of Minnesota signed into law a bill in 2023 to recognize a right to reproductive freedom and preventing local units of government from limiting that right.

Abortion in Pennsylvania is legal up to the 24th week of pregnancy. 51% of Pennsylvania adults said in a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center that abortion should be legal and 44% said it should be illegal in all or most cases.

Abortion in Puerto Rico is legal throughout pregnancy. On June 22, 2022, the Senate passed a bill limiting abortion to 22 weeks, with exceptions for danger to the mother's life, fetal defects, and if the fetus would not be viable. The bill will need to be considered by the House.

References

  1. Bellotti v. Baird , 428 U.S. 132 (1976).
  2. 1 2 Wharton, Linda (2009). "Roe at Thirty-Six and Beyond: Enhancing Protection for Abortion Rights Through State Constitutions". William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law.
  3. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 643 (1979).
  4. Presser, Lizzie (2022-11-29). "She Wasn't Ready for Children. A Judge Wouldn't Let Her Have an Abortion". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2022-12-04.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Belloti, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al. v. Baird et al" (PDF).
  6. Elson, A.L. (2004). "Bellotti v. Baird". Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood: In History and Society (Vol. 1, pp. 88-89).