Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth – Abortion
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S. Ct. 2831, 49 L. Ed. 2d 788 (1976).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This case involved the reproductive rights issue of whether a law requiring spousal consent for an abortion is constitutional.
FACTS: Missouri law required the prior written consent of the spouse of a woman seeking an abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy unless the abortion was certified by a licensed physician as necessary to preserve the life of the mother. Danforth (P) opposed that law.
ISSUE: 1) Can the state delegate to a spouse a veto power over abortion which the state itself is prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy? 2) Can the State constitutionally impose a parental consent requirement as a condition for an unmarried minor’s abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy?
RULE OF LAW: 1) No. The state cannot delegate to a spouse a veto power over abortion which the state itself is prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy. 2) No. The State may not constitutionally impose a parental consent requirement as a condition for an unmarried minor’s abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
HOLDING AND DECISION (Blackmun): The state does not have the constitutional authority to give the spouse the unilateral authority to prohibit the wife from terminating her pregnancy. The State may not constitutionally impose a blanket parental consent requirement as a condition for an unmarried minor’s abortion during the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy for substantially the same reasons as in the case of the spousal consent provision. Such requirements further no significant state interests, whether to safeguard the family unit and parental authority or otherwise, in conditioning an abortion on the consent of a parent with respect to the pregnant minor. As stressed in Roe v. Wade, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART (White): It does not follow that because the State has no such right the husband should be denied this right or that his interest in his wife’s pregnancy should be denied. A father’s interest in having a child may be unmatched by any other interest in his life.