Montana Supreme Court overturns parental consent requirement for abortions

The ruling by the state’s highest court on Wednesday reaffirmed a lower court ruling eliminating the requirement for parental consent for a minor to receive an abortion in the state. The 2013 Parental Consent for Abortion Act, also referred to as the Consent Act, required doctors to receive notarized consent from a parent before performing an abortion on a minor. Doctors must also include a declaration that they fully explained the procedure and associated risks, along with the rights of parents in the situation. The unanimous ruling overturned this law before it ever officially took effect due to the ongoing legal challenges from Planned Parenthood.

What was the opinion rationale? The ruling stated that Montana’s Constitution affords minors the same right to privacy as adults, including so-called procreative autonomy and medical decisions, and the Consent Act violated those rights. A minor has the fundamental right to make her own reproductive decisions, Justice Laurie McKinnon penned in the opinion. The justices insisted their opinion was not based on the issue of abortion, but rather the law’s weakness as a parental consent law.

The seven-justice panel ruled that the state’s argument for the law failed to give convincing evidence of the state’s interest in parental rights. Justices argued that if the heart of the statute truly aimed to bolster parental rights in medical decisions for minors, it should also require parental consent to carry the pregnancy to term. Minors can consent to many types of health care, including pregnancy prevention care, but abortion is singled out, the court argued.

Montana also argued that the law protected children from immature decision-making and the trauma of an abortion, assertions the justices said they found insufficient as compared with the child’s right to privacy. The state’s argument that only the minors who seek abortions are at risk of poor decision-making is illogical, according to the opinion. The court insisted the decision was not based on the moral, medical, or social implications of abortion, but rather on the legal logic of the statute.

What did the pro-abortion lobby have to say? Pro-abortion advocates were quick to champion the ruling. Young Montanans can make many of their own medical decisions, including prenatal and other pregnancy-related care, but the state singled out abortion, Planned Parenthood echoed. The court’s decision affirms the right to privacy and the ability to have an abortion if it’s best for patients and families, said President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Montana Martha Fuller.

What about supporters of the consent law? The ruling disappointed and deeply concerned Gov. Greg Gianforte, a self-professed parental rights advocate. The court’s ruling slammed one of the most fundamental rights a parent has of deciding medical care for their children, he said in a statement.

Advocates for life criticized the ruling. The Montana Supreme Court’s decision is ludicrous, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America spokeswoman Kelsey Pritchard told WORLD. Planned Parenthood believes girls who aren’t even old enough to get their ears pierced alone should be able to get an abortion without mom or dad, she said. The court’s ruling does not prioritize the safety of minors, Director of the Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity Mary Szoch told WORLD. The state needs parental consent for children to take Tylenol because of their underdeveloped brains, but somehow an abortionist can legally kill a child’s unborn baby without parental consent, she said.

Dig deeper: Read Leah Savas’ report on pro-life states battling abortion ballot measures this election cycle.