The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Montana S. Ct.: Abortion Parental Consent Law Violates State Constitution's Express Right to Privacy
From today's opinion in Planned Parenthood v. State, written by Justice Laurie McKinnon:
The Consent Act conditions a minor's right to obtain an abortion on parental consent unless a judicial waiver is obtained. It imposes no corresponding limitation on a minor who seeks medical or surgical care otherwise related to her pregnancy or her child. We decide today that the classification created by the Legislature violates the fundamental right of a minor to control her body and destiny as guaranteed by Article II, Section 10, of the Montana Constitution, without adequate justification from the State. The Consent Act, therefore, cannot be sustained against Plaintiffs' privacy and equal protection challenges.
Because a minor's right to control her reproductive decisions is among the most fundamental of the rights she possesses, and because the State has failed to demonstrate a real and significant relationship between the statutory classification and the ends asserted, we hold that the Consent Act violates the Constitution of the State of Montana.
The Montana Constitution expressly provides,
Right of Privacy. The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest….
Rights of Persons Not Adults. The rights of persons under 18 years of age shall include, but not be limited to, all the fundamental rights of this Article unless specifically precluded by laws which enhance the protection of such persons.
The opinion is long and detailed; if you're interested in the reasoning, read it here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"if you're interested in the reasoning"
I tend not to look closely at the reasoning of such cases because the decisions seem to be ad hoc rather than part of a consistent framework. If a decision on personal freedoms extends to vaccination and sadomasochism and wearing a motorcycle helmet, the reasoning matters. If abortion is legally unique, be brief.
Pretty much. Very few of these advocates of privacy or 'medical autonomy' actually care about it once you get away from stuff that's sex related.
Disagreeing with you on the contours doesn't mean they don't care.
Did you consider that both sides tend to be good with most policies about medical autonomy except the right gets weird when sex and abortion come up?
The left gets hella weird when it comes to forced vaccinations and the like.
Just sayin'.
Before Trump opposition to vaccination mandates was more commonly on the left than the right. Conservatives used to like to trot that fact out when people accused them of being anti-science.
Broad adoption of vaccines were utterly uncontroversial until Covid and the right wing media told y'all to get crazy with it.
The ones yelling about tyranny and 5G microchips and horse paste were not the normal folks, damikesc.
Broad adoption of vaccines were utterly uncontroversial because they prevented catching and/or passing the disease onto others.
True! It just turns out that for whatever reason with Covid vaccines Republicans decided that didn't matter anymore.
Once the Israeli study came out in August of 2020 along with numerous other studies showing the very rapid decline in effectiveness of the covid vaccine, a large hesitancy to taking an ineffective vaccine developed.
That was mostly post-facto rationalizations. A lot of people had already been convinced "vaccines bad". There's maybe a fair discussion to be had about risk/reward of the various vaccines, especially depending on age/comorbidities, but instead you end up with dumb statements like the one I was reacting to that the Covid vaccines don't prevent catching or spreading the disease.
JB - it was very well known by the medical authorities at pfizer, etal in october 2020 which was before the initial rollout of the vaccines that the mechanism necessary to stop the transmission of the virus wasnt going to work. See brix emails from the oct / nov 2020 time frame. fwiw, I became aware of those emails in the fall of 2021.
I do need to correct my statement in my prior post - The Israeli study came out in August 2021. Sorry for the typo
correction - the israeli study came out in August 2021 ,not august 2020.
Are you serious? Are you truly trying to pretend that Wakefield wasn't a thing for decades? That we didn't have the vaccine/autism discussion since half of us were children?
Or should we go back a bit? Does bovine syphilis ring a bell? Did you know that Pasteur actually did his anthrax vaccine trial on a flock that was randomized in front of reporters because of the severe pushback?
Abdul Abulbul Amir - not hardly. Not all vaccines were sterilizing vaccines.
It's a common goal of vaccine design, but rarely achieved (see Flu, Measles)
Vaccines that substantially reduce the number of cases and severity of infections is still pretty good.
Ben of Houston, there have always been cranks; cranks do not a controversy make.
As for going back a bit, you seem to be talking less about public controversy and more coming at vaccines because the science didn't run flawlessly over the past 100+ years.
Oh? People were forced to get vaccinated?
The point is that you're not disagreeing about the contours of medical autonomy. You're just appealing to "medical autonomy" to avoid admitting you only care about a right to make certain choices.
Actually, both sides are pretty BAD about medical autonomy. The practice of medicine is wrapped up like a mummy in regulations. And Democrats aren't any better than Republicans. You just want to cut a narrow window in the regulations for sex related stuff that you approve of.
Look at how you guys reject medical autonomy when it comes to conversion therapy, for instance. Lop off somebody's dick? Medical autonomy. Let somebody try to talk you into being straight? Ban it!
Brett, listen to what I said.
Most of the issues regarding medical autonomy are uncontroversial so you don't hear about them.
You only hear about controversial ones, because that's where there's friction.
And you make the rookie mistake of thinking that's all there is, so that's all either side cares about.
It's a very simple confirmation bias issue, but you don't see to be comprehending.
Your 'you only care about these few issues' works as well on the right. That's a clue you may be missing a baseline.
"Uncontroversial" = "Democrats and Republicans are BOTH bad on medical autonomy."
If kids should have complete freedom when it comes to killing babies and tranzing themselves why not literally anything else? I'm not even asking this as an opponent of abortion or kids transing. I seriously think in many ways it would be less hypocritical and more intellectually consistent to just eliminate the concept of minor and let everybody be an adult if they want to.
That's an important thing.
If my kid wants to join the chess club or get an aspirin from the school nurse, I need to give consent. However, if she wants to get an abortion or become a he, not only is my consent not necessary, but I'm actively prevented from being informed.
The priorities are not aligned.
I think the idea is that abortion or transitioning are things that will impact a kid differently than joining the chess club or getting an aspirin.
Might be helpful to read the decision? They lead off by pointing out that minors can get all sorts of other medical care related to their pregnancies without parental consent.
I am pretty sure that you do not actually need to give consent if your kid wants to join the chess club.
Do you actually have a kid in K-12? I assure you, you do need to give consent to your kid joining a club at school, at least here in SC.
"I tend not to look closely at the reasoning of such cases because the decisions seem to be ad hoc rather than part of a consistent framework."
You cannot possibly make that determination without examining the reasoning in the first place.
I think we can expect more such suits, especially in state’s stupid enough to amend their state constitutions with planned parenthood drafted pro-abortion propositions. And if Kamala wins, Katy bar the door.
"fundamental right of a minor to control her body and destiny"
So a child has a "right" to go and get some horns attached to their skull like some people do, or "gender transition" and chop off their breasts, things like that?
Seems really wacky, what are the people of Montana thinking?
Back in reality, my kids can't get a dental cleaning, play on a sports team, or jump at an indoor trampoline place, without parental consent.
Of course, with abortion, parental consent is often a bit of a shell game for something that people want to prevent generally (killing babies). But that doesn't seem to change the basic issue of consent.
The difference is that going without a dental cleaning, playing sports, or jumping on a trampoline won't permanently alter her life the way having a child will. Having a child really is different from everything else just because the consequences are different, and so none of the analogies made in favor of parents' rights are really on point. Pregnancy, childbirth and abortion are a category all their own.
And if a minor decides she's not mature enough to have a baby, chances are excellent that she's right.
If the minor decides she's not mature enough to rat out her statutory rapist, and needs to get an abortion, stat, without her parents OR a judge finding out, are the chances excellent that she's right about that, too?
The law here allowed for abortion without parental consent if you get a judge to OK it. But the judge might be curious how a minor got pregnant, so we can't have that. Planned Parenthood, OTOH? They don't care, they're also challenging another law in the state requiring simple notice, not consent.
"If the minor decides she’s not mature enough to rat out her statutory rapist"
Aren't you guys for having the government force that minor to have her rapists' child?
This is of course irrelevant to the primary abortion issue, which is whether to allow killing unborn babies for any or no reason at all. But pro-abortion people are obsessed with rape and bringing up red herrings because they apparently don't like to defend their position.
To address it anyway, I can see both sides of this issue. On the one hand, it can be distinguished from other cases because there is trespass, lack of consent, and a medical self-defense argument. On the other hand, an innocent party suffers loss of life. But there are analogues such as innocent trespass based on mistake that nonetheless leads to a justified killing in self-defense. I'm not talking here about the other rare exception category of danger to a mother's life (note that they call her a mother because she is a mother) but about rape in particular. I am open to any thoughtful and nuanced approaches to the issue that take relevant considerations into account. But most importantly, I am for self-government, which means that people have the right to decide this policy issue on a meaningfully distinct localized basis. I may have an opinion, but perhaps I should have no more direct political power over what another state decides than I do over what they decide in Afghanistan.
There would be an easy way for "pro abortion people" to be shut down on this: have exceptions for rape and incest.
Not at all. Once an exception is allowed, pro-abortionists then move on to the next thing, while arguing that the exception isn’t compatible with the rule and that anti-abortionists are inconsistent or hypocritical.
But I’m not concerned with whether pro-abortionists are “shut down” or not. All the conversations should be had. Instead, I’m concerned with policies that respect life all around, and ensuring that people have the right to self-govern and make those policy choices.
And so, again, I am open to the idea of exceptions for rape. But I have never understood this talking point about “incest.” I think it is just another way for people who are very ugly on the inside to bring up ugly, unpleasant, irrelevant things to try to shut others down. Maybe you can help me understand, you’re saying that if some cousins conceive for instance, they should be allowed to kill the baby because . . . ?
Incest here covers rape by parents or siblings and such.
"Not at all. Once an exception is allowed, pro-abortionists then move on to the next thing,"
Your future reading is an interesting super power! But, note, I said clearly "shut down on *this*." If you have exceptions for rape then complaints about not having exceptions for rape are going to have a great deal of the starch taken out of them.
Also, you keep saying "baby" when I think you mean embryos or fetuses.
"Incest here covers rape by parents or siblings and such."
So it adds nothing and means nothing. Just say rape. Zero reason to ever bring up incest again.
There'd be kind of a considerable reason when you're talking about parental notice/consent requirements.
It also occurs to me that it could cover cases where a minor past the age of consent gets voluntarily impregnated by her brother or uncle or what have you.
ML does not appear to actually be open to anything. Not does he seem to want to actually win on policy; he seems a lot more like he's in for the righteous forever war.
The statute PP is fighting allows informing a judge in the parents' place. PP doesn't want to have to inform ANYBODY.
If the choice is between ensuring that a statutory rapist is punished versus getting her the care she needs, I'll go with the latter. And there may or may not be a statutory rapist involved; some states have Romeo and Juliet laws.
I guess we’re fortunate that Romeo and Juliet wasn’t written in the era of the modern democratic party. Somehow I don’t think it would attain classical literary status as abortionist propaganda.
Rivabot makin' it weird!
If a 13 year old is pregnant, I suppose you believe her body belongs to the parents. But I think if she has a fetus, doesn't that fetus belong exclusively to her? Should she have any rights over the fetus that supersedes the parents?
You must have noticed the examples I gave were intentionally as trivial as possible? That's because with a more serious, life-altering matter, parental consent is even more important, not less so. And so, parental consent is obviously also required for a life-saving medical procedure, or other event or choice that will permanently alter your life. My point was that it's even required in practice for these more trivial things.
Aside from that, if you decide you're not mature enough to have a baby, that doesn't mean you kill one that you already have.
Not only is parental consent not required for a life saving procedural, parental opposition won't stop it. If someone's life is in danger, they're going to get treatment. At that point social services steps in and gets a court order if necessary.
Not every surgery is an emergency or deals with a life-threatening situation. Not even every appendectomy. Yes, there are a narrow class of cases where it is a true emergency and you don't need parental consent. Most medical procedures, including most abortions, are not within that narrow category.
Even for non-emergencies, social services will overrule the parents if it's in the best interest of the child. If a child shows up in the emergency room with a broken leg, it's not an emergency; if the parents try to prevent getting it treated they'll find out quickly enough that they don't get to make that call.
Also, I should have said some of the examples I gave were intentionally as trivial as possible.
Implanting horns in your skull or undergoing a "gender transition" are also permanently life altering. What do you say about that?
That those are also bad analogies. In the case of gender transition or having a horn implant (is that actually a thing?), *having* the procedure changes your life. In the case of abortion, *not having* the procedure changes your life.
So to be clear, you are saying that children should not be able to do those things?
If so, do you think that can be squared with "the fundamental right of a minor to control her body and destiny," or do you disagree that such a fundamental right does/should exist? The distinction you attempted to draw makes no difference with respect to a purported right to control one's body and destiny.
" The distinction you attempted to draw makes no difference with respect to a purported right to control one’s body and destiny."
Does that follow? I mean, there are lots of people who think one has the right under bodily autonomy to deny needed medical treatments but who also don't think they have a right to assisted suicide, to use an analogy.
Wrong, your hospital will require parental consent for any medical procedure. As Brett said emergencies are different. And yes if there is abuse, neglect, endangerment of children, then the state steps in accordingly. The worst possible iteration of that is attempting to kill your children.
But they don't have a baby. They have an embryo or a fetus.
Malika 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
But they don’t have a baby. They have an embryo or a fetus.
Its still a human.
Pro abortionists use "embryo or fetus" to de-humanize those they want to kill. Clinical terms used out of the medical context.
Could be worse for parents. They could be living in Walz's Minnesota. Unlimited abortion on demand up to birth. Even if the poor kid manages to survive the abortion, he's in for a surprise because Walz repealed protections designed to ensure the provision of life giving support.
The Consent Act conditions a minor's right to obtain an abortion on parental consent unless a judicial waiver is obtained. It imposes no corresponding limitation on a minor who seeks medical or surgical care otherwise related to her pregnancy or her child.
The second sentence seems off. So a child in Montana can get an appendectomy, or a face lift, without parental consent? I doubt it.
So what does "related to her pregnancy or child" mean?
I think it means pre-natal care. Sonograms etc.
If that's the case, there is an obvious difference. A sonogram is not invasive of the body the way an abortion or surgery is.
Aren't most abortions medication abortions?
So what's you point? They should get parental consent for that.
My children's school won't even give them a Tylenol without parental consent.
My point was in reply to BL's "A sonogram is not invasive of the body the way an abortion or surgery is."
Also, a medical provider =/= a school.
Schools have nurses, who are in fact medical providers.
I was using the term in the sense below
"Medical provider means a doctor of medicine or osteopathic medicine who is licensed to practice"
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/medical-provider
If her appendix bursts, not only can she get an appendectomy without parental approval, she's going to get one whether the parents approve or not.
Parental approval is the default for most decisions made by minors but it's not absolute and the question is where that line gets drawn, not whether it exists. As I said above, given the life-time consequences of having a child, I'm inclined to leave that decision with the person who will have to live with the results.
A baby is not [usually] life threatening like a burst appendix.
Get a better analogy.
For a minor an unwanted pregnancy and forced birth can make life pretty miserable.
Think what an abortion does to the child!
Terminates their existence before they're ever conscious?
conscious of the baby occurs much earlier, somewhere around the later part of the second trimester. Consciousness doesnt magically occur at the start of the 4th trimester. Pain sensation starts around 24-25 weeks.
I was going with his analogy; BoredLawyer was the one who mentioned appendectomies, so your objection should be addressed to him.
See my above comment. Not everything is an emergency. Absent that, we require parental consent for procedures far less invasive, and far less risky, than an abortion.
"the life-time consequences of having a child"
Since you can give the child up for adoption right away, the consequences are not as permanent as a gender transition.
"I’m inclined to leave that decision with the person who will have to live with the results."
By this logic, what about the decision to become impregnated in the first place? (Assuming there is a voluntary decision). Would you leave that with the minor as well? That's the direction your people are going.
"If her appendix bursts, not only can she get an appendectomy without parental approval, she’s going to get one whether the parents approve or not."
To be clear, I understand your position is that minors should be able to obtain abortions without parental consent or notification.
Is that limited to situations where the pregnancy threatens the minor's life or health? Or not?
I generally think that before Roe v. Wade was decided, “provacy” was not generally thought to include abortion, while acter Roe, it generally was.
So I think Florida’s state constitutional right of privacy actually more legitimate basis to include abortion as a matter of original intent than Montana’s. Montana’s constitutional revision containing Section 10 was enacted in 1972, just before Roe was decided, at a time when Montana had full criminal abortion laws on its books.
It seems to me that there has to be some way to decide these matters other than simply what one personally thinks about abortion. And I think original meaning is probably the best approach here. Nobody could have imagined “privacy” included abortion before Roe. But after Roe, whether one agrees with the decision or not, the US Supreme Court, decision had the effect of changing the general legal meaning of the word “provacy” to include it.
So unless there is specific discussion in a legislature or constitutional convention on the subject, I would suggest that using dating (before or after Roe) as the basis provides the most principled and objective standard for whether a general privacy provision covers abortion or not.
From what I've read, privacy was thought to extend to medical decisions, of which abortion was one among many. Blackmun had been resident counsel for the Mayo Clinic, after all.
Yes, in later years it's been lamented that there were firmer footings than the line of cases on SDP and privacy. Doesn't mean it's not a valid right though. I'm an EPC person myself.
As for the rest of it, originalism and abortion is a can of worms what with quickening and then tech about viability changing a lot since then.
You can try, but in the end I don't think originalism actually helps much other than to rationalize whatever outcome you already want.
Does the equal protection argument for abortion entail the right to the death of the fetus? Or merely the right to the removal of the fetus? In the future, it will be possible to remove the unborn child -without killing it- from very early in pregnancy. Of course, it is possible to do this now after viability. But the pro-choice position is that even at that stage, it must be lawful to kill the child. How is that securing equal protection, though? Why isn't a right of removal enough?
Because a woman should be able to decide whether she wants to be pregnant, that's the kind of decision that is hers to make.
You make this way to binary; there's a continuum of growing state interest, as compared to the interest of the mother within the standard EPC intermediate scrutiny for gender-related distinctions.
It would absolutely be new law - it's more of a disparate impact push than what we currently do under EPC.
In the future, it will be possible to remove the unborn child -without killing it- from very early in pregnancy
We'll see who comes down how at that point.
The strawman from pro lifers is pro choice folks likes abortions because it loves murder. I don't find that very likely.
The strawman from pro choicers is pro life folks dislike abortion more as a proxy to police women's sexual freedom. What with childless cat ladies in the news lately, that one has some weight to it.
The rest of your comment I don't think is at all established by pro choice positions; it's a huge projection into the future.
mikeybates - I am partially addressing your comment on EP and the lawful right to kill the child.
One of the pro abortion arguments is that the baby/fetus has no constitutional rights until the moment of birth.
That highlights two of the ironies of the pro-abortion arguments 1) first its okay to kill the innocent, but death penalty for those guilty of gruesome murder should be unconstitutional and B) if you do execute the guilty, it should be pain free ie causing any pain in death is cruel and unusual punishment. whereas a baby / fetus who can feel pain at 24-25 weeks should be provided no drugs to alleviate that pain when they are killed.
"Allow me to start with an extremist strawman.
This highlights waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank.'
Summary from sacastro
Okay to kill the innocent
Not okay to kill the guilty
If you found my comment too subtle, "One of the pro abortion arguments is that the baby/fetus has no constitutional rights until the moment of birth" is a not an argument.
It is at best nutpicking.
But seems more like poop.
From a butt.
That is another stupid comment even by your standards
I'm pointing out a flaw in your argument, and you don't seem to be able to handle.
And so you repeat yourself. You've dropped the 'stupid comment even by your standards' how many times this week? 3?
Get new material!
There was no flaw -
All I pointed out was one of the inane pro abortion arguments and the obvious double standard. Sorry if you are incapable of grasping one of the multitude of inane proabortion arguments.
Flawless nutpicking.
Truly you have wrecked that strawman with skill and finesse.
But before Roe, nobody thought of abortion as just a medical decision, and certainly not just an individual one. It was a crime in every state. Many states had boards that reviewed decisions to determine if an abortion fit into one of the exception categories and hence would be lawful. Nobody thought the medical information involved in such reviews private in the way other medical information might be. It wan’t in any way similar to general medical decisions.
Also, I’d focus on Sarcastro’s use of the passive “was thought.” I don’t doubt that Blackman thought it. Nor do I have reason to disagree that he got this idea from certain people at the Mayo Clinic. But the question here isn’t whether you can identify somebody who thought the idea at the time. i concede you can, so the idea indeed “was thought.”
The question is what the framers of the particular constitutional provision thought. For that question, it doesn’t matter what Justice Blackman and a few Mayo Clinic doctors thought. What matters is what the Montana legislature and voters thought.
Women having agency over their own bodies without interference from men or governments is radical to you, Reader Y?
While the case is specific to abortion, I assume it would apply to minors and all medical procedures in the same risk category?
And that, absent parental consent, the minor will pay the expenses?
Another data point that we need to give "person" the correct meaning in the 14th amendment. An unborn person is a person just as much as a born one. If the framers had meant "person" to be only after birth, easy to write. They did not though.
Its Montana, nor California here. The moral disaster caused by 50 years of Roe rot is more widespread than I imagined.
People had 50 years to get used to the idea that their private medical decisions are not the state's business.
Its not a "private medical decision", it affects another human life.
Says you, begging the question as you do.
That and an amendment to the Constitution will get you a cup of coffee.
Human, but not a person.
> Human, but not a person.
Huh. Isn't that was southern Democrats said about slaves?
So, you think black persons are a lot like zygotes?
Around 15% of them.
Abortion supporters are identical to slave owners though.
Among other things, you don't seem to know what "identical" means.
Morally identical.
No, not even that. At best you're talking about an apt analogy, not identical.
But of course, it's not a very apt analogy at all. Born black slaves weren't less developed than a tadpole, though you may think that.
Both were treated with about the same amount of respect by Democrats.
Slaves had already been born. Next.
A "person" just means someone who has legal rights, so your argument is circular.
And yes, it's the same argument as slavery. Or genocide, or other things that deny certain humans of a right to life or other basic rights.
No, it's not the same argument as slavery. Slavery was about slavery, abortion is about abortion. Born black persons are not embryos.
This certain class of humans don't deserve any legal rights, because they are [fill in the blank].
Malika 2 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
"Human, but not a person."
A human , but not a person? A person who doesnt have constitutional rights? is that how you justify killing a human?
“People had 50 years to get used to the idea that their private medical decisions are not the state’s business.”
I could get used to that. If only that were actually true, especially in your side’s view.
Instead, the one instance where you pretend to apply that idea, is just a lie and propaganda because it isn't a private decision at all but takes another's life.
Pregnancy, whether carried to term, terminated or ending in miscarriage, involves another human life but that doesn't make it less of a private matter.
"People had 50 years to get used to the idea that their private medical decisions are not the state’s business."
I'm not sure what a country where that was actually true would look like, but it's sure as hell not THIS country.
It's laughable to think the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment were thinking of zygotes.
The 14th Amendment itself uses the word person in ways that would be absurd to have zygotes included ("Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State"). If the Ratifiers wanted to say unborn persons they knew how to do that.
You realize the zygote phase is short, lasting only around four days.
No aborted child is a zygote.
Aren't you in favor of life begins at conception laws?
What do you think “All persons born” means?
I wonder how minors are going to pay for these medical procedures that they are going to get without parental consent?
When my kid was old enough to drive but still a minor they went to the doctor for stuff and the bill was paid by our insurance.
The section starting on page 24 about protecting minors from sexual victimization is definitely the weakest link in the opinion. At most, it suggests the law should be rewritten to only cover abortions for minors who were impregnated below the age of consent. Then it says nonsense like "further, the State has failed to logically connect and justify how the Consent Act prevents victimization of minors even when teen pregnancy is the product of an assault." That's like saying criminalizing sexual assault of minors doesn't do anything to prevent the sexual assault of minors because it only punishes people after the fact.
The "existing protections for children" argument doesn't make much sense, either. A pregnancy that began before the age of consent will be sexual abuse regardless. After the age of consent, parental notification strengthens the likelihood that abuse will be reported by giving knowledge to parties who know more about the circumstances of an individual than a random medical provider who just met her. It undeniably makes it more likely that abuse will be discovered and reported.
The court then somehow says "onerous and burdensome" requirements for parental consent do not "prevent the evasion of parental notice requirements." What? They literally ensure that the parents had notice and the consent is not forged.
"At most, it suggests the law should be rewritten to only cover abortions for minors who were impregnated below the age of consent."
What? If a minor is pregnant, she was also impregnated when a minor. Unless someone has invented time machines.
It says in the opinion that the age of consent in Montana is 16, even though the person is a minor until age 18. The notification act required it for minors above the age of consent, which undermined the state's argument that the law helped detect sexual abuse of minors.
What if the abuser and parent (of both) are the same?
Then the minor can use the judicial backstop option.
Never mind. I was focusing on notice when the law requires consent.
The requirement of parental notice of an abortion should be enough for abuse detection purposes. Once they have notice, parental consent for the abortion doesn't appear to accomplish anything.
I would find the misnamed pro-life position far more credible if it weren't so blatant in its total disregard of the woman. No matter how much she will suffer, no matter her interests, no matter how much it thoroughly upends her life, she simply is not relevant to the conversation. If that's not misogyny I don't know what would be.
Theoretical, potential persons are more important than actual, realized persons for many Republicans, as long as the latter are women.
About half of aborted children are female.
You mean embryos and fetuses I think.
And guess what percent of those that carried them or that would be forced by the government to carry them if you had you were way were female?
So what? Their sex is not the reason they're being aborted.
It often is, particularly in India and China. There is a mountain of scholarship on that point.
We're talking about the US, obviously.
Same thing happens in the U.S.
Citation?
This is behind a paywall, unfortunately: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/nyregion/15babies.html
The article in 2009 says there is evidence of sex-specific abortions for certain immigrant groups.
Professor Sital Kalantry in a 2017 book on the subject provided another view, arguing there is little evidence overseas beliefs carried over here, at least as to Indians.
(Women’s Human Rights and Migration: Sex-Selective Abortion Laws in the United States and India)
Are pro-life women misogynist or just too stupid to understand their own position?
You can recognize the impact unwanted pregnancy has on a woman and still be pro-life.
It just doesn't happen much, empirically.
If you think women can’t be misogynist I have news for you.
Women as a group are significantly more pro-life than men as a group in the U.S.
According to Gallup that doesn't seem correct.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx
That is different from the data I've seen; maybe it has shifted. Previously it seemed that women were at least slightly more pro-life on the whole. Here's a source but focused on UK I guess.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2014/apr/30/why-are-women-more-opposed-to-abortion
Only ~23% of American women will get an abortion at some point in their lives. And the number varies quite a bit by population group, of course. How many women who use birth control properly get abortions?
"How many women who use birth control properly get abortions?"
Here it comes!
The pro-choicers are the ones who claim abortion reduces crime. The proposed causal mechanism isn't magic...
The only pro-choice argument I've heard about abortion reducing crime is made in the most general way-that unwanted, unprepared children are more likely to commit crimes.
But that's not what I was getting at in my reply.
Might want to read up on Margaret Sanger.
In what regard?
That's just a blatant lie.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782424001082
I was responding to Krycheck. There's no evidence that the pro-life position is misnamed, or that it involves disregard for women (as Bob noted half of aborted children are female) or that it involves disregard for mothers considering abortion in particular.
If pro-life people were OK with butchering mothers and tearing their limbs apart, then he would have a point.
They just want to force them to have babies.
Everything you say is enough to justify infanticide. Thus, you are simply assuming that the preborn human being is not a subject of rights. If that's what you believe, then make that argument, because if it's true, then you don't need the rhetorical flourish. But if the unborn is a subject of rights, then the rhetorical flourish is inadequate.
Quite revealing that you ignore the question on which the whole debate turns.
Again, no ... no it does not.
Expert on the Montana Constitution, are you?
41 pages, double spaced, with separate concurrence, doesn’t seem all that long to me.
ETA: first 10 pp are just recitation of facts, procedural history and relevant statute.
"fundamental right of a minor to control her body and destiny”
Of course, she can't control the identity of her parents, the place she was born, the language that she speaks, or the laws under which she is under, and she can't get out of compulsory education either. But when it comes to killing her parents' grandchild, well, it's destiny, damn it.