Get A Free Consultation
(406) 315-3737 Get A Free Consultation
(406) 315-3737The Supreme Court’s Montana abortion law ruling in Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State reinforced Montana’s strong constitutional privacy protections. The Court unanimously struck down the 2013 Parental Consent for Abortion Act, ruling that the law violated Montana’s right to privacy. In a significant decision, the Court held that the Consent Act “violates the fundamental right of a minor to control their body and destiny, without adequate justification from the State, and cannot be sustained against Plaintiffs’ privacy and equal protection challenges. Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State, 2024 MT 178, ¶ 56, 417 Mont. 457 (internal citations omitted).
In 2013, Montana enacted the Parental Consent for Abortion Act, which required minors seeking abortions to obtain notarized parental consent from their parents. This had wide-ranging implications for Montana abortion law. Planned Parenthood of Montana challenged the law on the grounds that it violated minors’ privacy rights under the state’s Constitution. The law was quickly blocked by a court order.
Planned Parenthood argued that forcing minors to obtain parental consent for an abortion infringed on their ability to make personal medical decisions. This, they asserted, violated Montana’s constitutional protections for privacy, particularly the right to bodily autonomy. As the Court noted, it had already held in Weems v, State, 2023 MT 82, ¶ 36, 412 Mont. 132, 529 P.3d 798, that “[t]he right of privacy contained in the Montana Constitution protects a woman’s right to procreative autonomy.” Planned Parenthood, ¶22.
Montana’s Constitution offers stronger privacy protections than many other states, due to its explicit privacy clause. Article II, Section 10 states: “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.” This language provides a higher standard of protection than the U.S. Constitution.
Planned Parenthood argued that the state failed to meet this high standard. The Court agreed, stating, “minors, like adults, have a 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 free from governmental interest.” Planned Parenthood, ¶ 24. The Court emphasized that the privacy right guaranteed by Montana’s Constitution applies to all individuals, including minors.
The Court emphasized that reproductive decisions are deeply personal and inherently tied to an individual’s autonomy. Planned Parenthood, ¶ 24. While the state argued that the law aimed to protect minors and foster family involvement, the Court rejected this rationale. They found that the law imposed “unnecessary stress, delay, and potential increase in the risk of abortion and inability to obtain an abortion altogether.” Planned Parenthood, ¶ 51.
The Court explained, “[t]he problem with the Consent Act is that it does not provide minors with resources, counseling, and guidance to help them navigate this choice; rather (except in cases of a granted judicial bypass or other exception), it takes the choice away from them, giving it instead to their parent or guardian.” Planned Parenthood, ¶ 44. The state also failed to show how the law enhanced the protection of minors, as the Constitution requires.
The Court relied on the precedent set in Weems, which upheld privacy rights in medical decisions. In Weems, the Court ruled that any state interference with private medical decisions must be supported by a compelling reason. The Court applied that same reasoning here, stating, “the State ha[d] failed to present adequate justification, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the Consent Act is narrowly tailored to further only a compelling state interest in the protection of minors. Planned Parenthood, ¶ 49.
The Montana Supreme Court ruling on Montana abortion law affirmed that the state cannot impose laws restricting reproductive rights without proving a compelling state interest. As the Court explained, “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.” Planned Parenthood, ¶ 56.
This ruling strongly reinforces minors’ rights to make decisions about their reproductive health without state interference. The Court concluded that “a minor’s right to dignity, autonomy, and the right to choose are embedded in the liberties found in the Montana Constitution. 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. Planned Parenthood, ¶ 56. The decision underscores Montana’s commitment to safeguarding privacy rights, regardless of age.
Furthermore, the ruling highlights the strength of Montana’s privacy protections. The unanimous decision reinforced that privacy is not a partisan issue. All seven justices agreed that protecting individual rights from government intrusion is a fundamental principle. The Court stated, that the right to privacy is “perhaps, one of the most important rights guaranteed to the citizens of this State, and its separate textual protection in our Constitution reflects Montanans’ historical abhorrence and distrust of excessive governmental interference in their personal lives.” Planned Parenthood, ¶ 22.
At Boland Aarab, we proudly served as local counsel for Forward Montana and Indigenous Women Rising in this case. These organizations advocate for reproductive rights and privacy protections, and we ensured that their voices were represented in court. We supported the effort to protect the constitutional rights of all Montanans.
This case reflects our firm’s commitment to defending privacy and reproductive rights in Montana. We believe that all individuals, regardless of age, should have the freedom to make personal medical decisions without state interference.
If you would like to learn more about our work, click here. If you have legal questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to us.
For more details on the case, you can read the Montana Free Press article.
The Montana Supreme Court privacy ruling in Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State marks a crucial moment for privacy and reproductive rights in Montana. The Court reinforced that any restriction on an individual’s right to procreative autonomy by the State must be as result of a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to be the least restrictive means of accomplishing the goal. Planned Parenthood, ¶ 56.
The Court’s decision reaffirms that any restriction on individual autonomy must meet the high standard of a compelling state interest. As Montana continues to address privacy-related legislation, this ruling will remain a key touchstone for protecting personal freedoms. Although the legal landscape constantly changes, this decision will have a lasting impact on Montana abortion law.