Sides Heard On Parental Notification

Appellate judges heard arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of a Montana law requiring parental notification before a minor can get an abortion.

The law, which had been scheduled to take effect Oct. 1, was thrown out by U.S. District Judge James Battin of Billings, Mont., who found it placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to abortion.

Under the law, a minor who does not wish to notify her parents is required to prove to a Youth Court judge that doing so would not be in her best interest. Battin ruled that a girl must be able to bypass the notification requirement by simply showing that an abortion is in her best interest - a course the law does not address.

In its appeal of Battin’s ruling to a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Montana attorney general’s office said the court was not being asked to rule on “the ultimate wisdom of the abortion itself since the minor has an absolute right to undergo that procedure.”

“Under the Constitution, all that is required is that the state court be allowed to determine if notice is in the best interest of the pregnant girl,” Montana state solicitor Clay Smith said after the hearing here.

Parental notice requirements recognize the interest of states in ensuring that abortion decisions consider not only the medical consequences, but the moral and family consequences in cases involving immature minors, the state said in its written arguments.

But lawyer Simon Heller of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, one of the plaintiffs challenging the law, said the Montana requirement “transgressed constitutional boundaries.”

U.S. Supreme Court precedent requires that a state provide a confidential, speedy way for a young woman to waive a parental-consent requirement, Heller said.