Matheson, supra, at , and n. See also Bellotti II, U. Clearly, then, requiring notification of one parent significantly burdens a young woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. The hour delay after notification further aggravates the harm caused by the pre-notification delay that may flow from a minor's fear of notifying a parent. Moreover, the hour delay burdens the rights of all minors, including those who would voluntarily consult with one or both parents. The District Court specifically found as a matter of fact that "[d]elay of any length in performing an abortion increases the statistical risk of mortality and morbidity.
Even a brief delay can have a particularly detrimental impact if it pushes the abortion into the second trimester, when the operation is substantially more risky and costly. A World Review , pp.
National Dairy Prod. A person shall not be held liable under this section if the person establishes by written evidence that the person relied upon evidence sufficient to convince a careful and prudent person that the representations of the pregnant woman regarding information necessary to comply with this section are bona fide and true, or if the person has attempted with reasonable diligence to deliver notice, but has been unable to do so. The burden, if any, that this expense would create is discussed infra with respect to the substantive due process argument. The Court resolved the issue in the affirmative in a opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justice Kennedy. We find the classifications created by the Minnesota legislature here fall within the permissible boundaries recognized by the Clover Leaf Creamery and Plyler courts. In deciding whether to grant such consent, a pregnant woman's parents shall consider only their child's best interests If one of the pregnant woman's parents has died or is unavailable to the physician within a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, consent of the remaining parent shall be sufficient.
Moreover, the District Court found that the hour delay "frequently is compounded by scheduling factors such as clinic hours, transportation requirements, weather, a minor's school and work commitments, and sometimes a single parent's family and work commitments," often resulting in an effective delay of a week or more.
Certainly no pregnant woman facing these heightened risks to her health would dismiss them as "minimal. Because the parental notification and delay requirements burden a young woman's right freely to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy, the State must show that these requirements are justified by a compelling state interest and are closely tailored to further that interest.
The main purpose of the notification requirement is to "protect the well-being of minors by encouraging minors to discuss with their parents the decision whether to terminate their pregnancies" Id. The hour delay, in turn, is designed to provide parents with adequate time to consult with their daughters. Ante, at 27 opinion of Stevens, J.
As Justice Stevens states, such consultation is intended to ensure that the minor's decision is "knowing and intelligent. I need not determine whether the State's interest ultimately outweighs young women's privacy interests, however, because the strictures here are not closely tailored to further the State's asserted goal.
For the many young women who would voluntarily consult with a parent before having an abortion, see supra, at 4, the notification and delay requirements are superfluous, and so do not advance the State's interest. The requirements affect only those women who would not otherwise notify a parent.
But compelled notification is unlikely to result in productive consultation in families in which a daughter does not feel comfortable consulting her parents about intimate or sexual matters. Unintended Effects, 42 American Psychologist 79, 81 stating that in many families, compelled parental notification is unlikely to result in meaningful discussion about the daughter's predicament ; Tr.
Steven Butzer stating that involuntary disclosure is disruptive to family and has "almost universally negative" effects, in accord with minor's expectations. Moreover, in those families with a history of child abuse, a pregnant minor forced to notify a parent is more likely to be greeted by physical assault or psychological harrassment than open and caring conversation about her predicament. Lenore Walker stating that forced notification in dysfunctional families is likely to sever communication patterns and increase the risk of violence ; H.
Forced noti fication in such situations would amount to punishing the daughter for the lack of a stable and communicative family environment, when the blame for that situation lies principally, if not entirely, with the parents.
Parental notification in the less-than-ideal family, therefore, would not lead to an informed decision by the minor. If this is so, the statute is surely underinclusive, as it does not require parental notification where the minor seeks medical treatment for pregnancy, venereal disease, or alcohol and other drug abuse. Are we to believe that Minnesota parents have no interest in their children's well-being in these other contexts?
In any event, parents' right to direct their children's upbringing is a right against state interference with family matters. See also Wisconsin v.
Society of Sisters, U. Yet, ironically, the State's requirements here affirmatively interfere in family life by trying to force families to conform to the State's archetype of the ideal family. East Cleveland, U. It is a strange constitutional alchemy that would transform a limitation on state power into a justification for governmental intrusion into family interactions. Moreover, as a practical matter, "state intervention is hardly likely to resurrect parental authority that the parents themselves are unable to preserve.
Joint Departments, Offices, and Commissions. Schedules, Calendars, and Legislative Business. Legislative Committees. Statutes, Laws, and Rules. Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Revisor Menu. Authenticate PDF. Minor's consent valid.
Notification concerning abortion. Parent, abortion; definitions. No notice shall be required under this section if: 1 the attending physician certifies in the pregnant woman's medical record that the abortion is necessary to prevent the woman's death and there is insufficient time to provide the required notice; or 2 the abortion is authorized in writing by the person or persons who are entitled to notice; or 3 the pregnant minor woman declares that she is a victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse as defined in section Justice O'Connor repeated an assertion from her earlier opinions that state laws restricting abortion should be upheld as long as they do not impose an ''undue burden'' on the right to obtain an abortion.
This analysis differs significantly from the approach the Court outlined in Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that established a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy as an aspect of the constitutional right to privacy. Under Roe v. Wade, restrictions on abortion can be upheld only if they serve a state purpose that is ''compelling,'' such as protecting a fetus in the last three months of pregnancy, when it can live outside the womb. Although Justice O'Connor has referred to her ''undue burden'' standard several times, it has not been clear how she would apply it in practice, because in her 10 years on the Court she had never found an abortion restriction to be unconstitutional.
Her opinion today, finding that the two-parent notice requirement would be unconstitutional without the provision for a judicial bypass, marked the first time she had objected to any state regulation of abortion.
But the uncertainty about the meaning of her ''undue burden'' standard nonetheless remained, because in finding the two-parent notice requirement ''unreasonable'' she did not decide whether the requirement posed an undue burden. The Court's ruling in the Minnesota case, Hodgson v. Minnesota, No. Alsop in after a five-week trial.
Judge Alsop found that the two-parent notice requirement had harmful effects on the teen-agers and on their divorced or separated parents, who often shared their daughters' great reluctance to involve the absent or noncustodial parent in the abortion decision. The law was challenged by a group of doctors including Dr. Jane Hodgson, an obstetrician who has been performing abortions in Minnesota for many years.
The trial marked the first time a parental-involvement statute had been tested before a court on the basis of actual experience. All other such court challenges, including the challenge to the Ohio law that the Supreme Court also resolved today, had been brought before the statutes went into effect. The appellate court agreed that the notice requirement alone was unconstitutional, but ruled that it could be made constitutional with the addition of the bypass requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that judicial hearings must be offered as alternatives to state laws requiring parental consent, rather than notification, for abortion.
But it had not ruled on whether the same requirement applied to notification statutes. Four Justices, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, said today that there need be no judicial alternative to a notice requirement.