Wicklund, et al. v. State, et al.
Physicians and health care facilities challenged the constitutionality of
Montana law requiring parental notification or court order for minors seeking
an abortion. A Montana trial-level court
ruled that the law violated the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of equal
protection under the law and granted Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent
injunction. That decision was not
appealed.
Filing date: 10/14/97
State: Montana
Plaintiff(s): Susan Wicklund, M.D., James H. Armstrong, M.D., Susan Cahill, P.A.,
Intermountain Planned Parenthood, Planned Parenthood of Missoula, Clayton
McCracken, M.D., and Yellowstone Valley Women’s Clinic, Inc., on behalf of
themselves and their patients.
Center Attorney(s): Simon Heller
Co-Counsel/Cooperating Attorneys: Dara Klassel, Planned Parenthood Federation of
America, Roberta
Anner-Hughes, Herndon, Sweeney, &, Halverson
Summary: Physicians and healthcare facilities challenged the constitutionality of
Montana law requiring parental notification or court order for minors seeking
an abortion. A Montana trial-level court
ruled that the law violated the Montana Constitution’s guarantee of equal
protection under the law and granted Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent
injunction. That decision was not
appealed.
The law passed by the Montana Legislature in 1995 would have prevented
unmarried women under the age of 18 years from having an abortion in Montana
unless a parent or legal guardian was notified of the planned abortion 48 hours
before or the woman obtained a court order authorizing her to have an abortion
without parental notification. The Center challenged
the law initially in federal court, after the federal court injunction was
dissolved, the Center filed a challenge in state court based on provisions in the
Montana Constitution.
In our motion for summary judgment in this case, we submitted evidence
demonstrating that many minors, especially younger minors, involve a parent in
their decision to seek an abortion and that those who do not often have good
reasons for not doing so. Other evidence
demonstrated the likely harms from the law, the safety of abortion, and minors’
ability to make the decision whether to continue a pregnancy or seek an
abortion. The trial court found that the
law infringed minors’ right to privacy under the Montana Constitution, did not
enhance the protection of minors, and treating pregnant minors who wanted to
terminate their pregnancy unequally and unfairly compared to pregnant minors
who choose not to do so.
The Center prevailed on its motion for summary judgment. The Defendants did not appeal that decision
and the law was permanently enjoined. In
its decision, the trial court noted that “the majority of pregnant minors
involve a parent in decision-making about whether to obtain an abortion, and
those minors who do not involve their parents often have a legitimate reason
for not doing so. In those cases
parental involvement is not in the minors’ best interests.”