## Facts

- Massachusetts enacted a statute requiring parental consent for most nonemergency abortions sought by unmarried minors under 18, with a judicial alternative.
- Federal plaintiffs challenged the statute as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment; a three-judge federal district court enjoined enforcement.
- The Supreme Court initially required the federal court to obtain an authoritative state-law construction; the statute was then construed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
- Under that construction, parental consent was required in nearly all cases; a parent was to receive notice of the minor’s court proceeding when available; and a court could deny authorization even if it found the minor mature and informed, based on the court’s view that a parent’s (or the court’s) decision was “better.”
- After the state-court construction, the federal district court again held the statute unconstitutional and enjoined it; the Commonwealth appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a state may require parental consent for a minor’s abortion when the judicial alternative allows a judge to override even a mature, informed minor’s decision and generally requires parental notice.
2. What constitutional minimum requirements a parental-involvement scheme must satisfy under the Fourteenth Amendment when applied to minors seeking abortions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating the Massachusetts scheme as construed.
- The Court held that a state may involve parents in a minor’s abortion decision only if it provides an adequate judicial bypass.
- The Massachusetts scheme was unconstitutional because it permitted an effective veto over a minor’s decision and did not ensure that a mature, informed minor could obtain an abortion without parental involvement.
- The Court required that any bypass operate with anonymity and expedition sufficient to give the minor an effective opportunity to obtain the procedure.

## Legal Principles

- A state may condition a minor’s access to abortion on parental involvement only if it provides an alternative procedure allowing authorization without parental consent.
- A constitutionally adequate bypass must permit authorization when:
  - the minor proves she is mature and sufficiently informed to decide independently in consultation with a physician; or
  - even if not mature, the abortion is in the minor’s best interests.
- The state may not confer an absolute or arbitrary veto over the abortion decision on a third party, including parents or a judge acting as a substitute decisionmaker for parents.
- The bypass process must be sufficiently confidential (including anonymity) and sufficiently prompt to be practically effective.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Massachusetts’s parental-consent scheme because it allowed parental notice and judicial discretion to function as a veto even against a mature, informed minor’s choice, and it held that parental-involvement laws are permissible only with an anonymous, expedited judicial bypass based on maturity or best interests.


Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979)