Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down Parental Consent for Abortion Law
In a victory for abortion rights advocates, the court unanimously upheld a district court ruling that a 2013 state law infringed on Montanans’ constitutional rights to privacy and bodily autonomy
By Denali Sagner
The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously upheld a district court decision that a law requiring minors to receive parental consent before obtaining an abortion violated the constitutional right to control one’s body.
In a 36-page ruling, the court wrote that the state of Montana failed to prove that a 2013 law mandating notarized parental consent for abortion patients under 18 enhanced the protection of minors. The court found that the law violated a minor’s 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.”
The ruling marked a victory for abortion rights advocates following a prolonged legal battle over the law, which was first brought before a district court in February 2023. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the appeal in March of this year.
As Republican efforts to block abortion access and curtail the power of the judiciary mount, the ruling bolstered the efforts of reproductive healthcare advocates, who called the decision an affirmation of Montanans’ fundamental rights to privacy.
The Parental Consent for Abortion Act of 2013, or Consent Act, required minors to receive parental consent to obtain an abortion, unless a judicial waiver was obtained. Legislators in passing the law argued that minors are unable to make fully informed choices and unprepared to deal with the medical and psychological consequences of abortion.
The law never took effect given the legal challenge from Planned Parenthood.
Attorneys for the state argued before the court that the Consent Act furthered the state’s interest in protecting minors from sexual exploitation and rash decision making. The state also argued that parents have a fundamental right to direct the care of their children.
Plaintiffs Planned Parenthood of Montana and Dr. Samuel Dickman maintained that the Consent Act violated the state constitution’s right to privacy and equal protection clauses, as the law creates two classes of minors — those who seek abortions and those who carry their pregnancies to term.
In siding with the plaintiffs, the court’s ruling cited Armstrong v. State, the 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling that found pre-viability abortion to be protected under the state’s right to individual privacy. The court also cited Weems vs. State, a 2023 ruling that allowed advanced practice registered nurses to provide abortions.
The latter case was brought by Helen Weems, a nurse practitioner and the owner of All Families Healthcare, an abortion provider in Whitefish.
In the ruling, written by Justice Laurie McKinnon, the court stated, “When weighed against the right of a minor to make the most intimate and personal decision of whether to carry a child to term, the interests expressed by the State must be furthered by and substantially related to the legislation itself, and the legislation must be narrowly tailored to meet only those legitimate legislative goals. A minor’s right to dignity, autonomy, and the right to choose are embedded in the liberties found in the Montana Constitution.”
Martha Fuller, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Montana, said in a statement following the ruling, “This decision affirms the right to privacy and we are pleased that the Court upheld the fundamental rights of Montanans today. Montanans deserve the ability to make private medical decisions and have the ability to access abortion care if that is what is best for patients and families.”
Weems told the Beacon via text, “This decision, which comes as a great relief, upholds the fundamental right of a minor to control her body and her destiny. The right to bodily autonomy is guaranteed by our state constitution and is further strengthened by the cases of Armstrong v State and Weems v State. In their decision, the justices have demonstrated their respect for our constitution and deference to precedent. This win for bodily autonomy highlights the importance of voting in November for candidates that expressly support reproductive rights and judges, like Judges [Katherine] Bidegary and [Jerry] Lynch, who will continue to respect our state constitution and legal precedent.”
Chase Scheuer, press secretary for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, said in an email, “Today’s decision further proves how radical and out-of-touch the Montana Supreme Court is with their constituents.”
Scheuer called the lack of parental notification for abortion “ludicrous” and said Knudsen will “continue to protect the health and well-being of young women in Montana.”
Gov. Greg Gianforte said in a statement, “As a strong defender of parental rights, I’m deeply concerned and disappointed by today’s ruling from the Montana Supreme Court, which states parents do not have a fundamental right to oversee the medical care of their young daughters. In its ruling, the Court has wielded its gavel like a hammer against one of the fundamental rights in our history: the right of parents to consent to the medical care of their minor children.”
The ruling arrived as abortion rights advocates spar with the state over an initiative seeking to cement a right to abortion in the Montana Constitution. While backers of the initiative say they’ve gathered enough signatures to put the measure on the ballot in November, Republican officials have attempted to block the effort, calling it contradictory and confusing to voters.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include a comment from Weems and the attorney general’s office.