Teenage Abortion and the Right to Privacy (1979)

Good evening. For the million or more teenagers who get pregnant each year, what to do about it may become the most agonizing decision of their lives. Whether even to tell their parents may be a terrible choice, whether to bear the child and keep it, give it up for adoption, or have it aborted, may be an even more difficult decision, both for the girl and her parents. Can a youngster make such a decision on her own with only a doctor to consult? Does it violate her constitutional rights to insist that her parents or a court give their consent? Today, those questions went to the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case involving the constitutionality of a state law in Massachusetts. Tonight we look at the perplexing question of abortion for teenagers and who should advise them. Jim? [Jim Lehrer] Robin, the legal history on the consent question goes like this. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled states cannot ban abortions in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. More than a dozen states countered by passing laws prohibiting abortions on minors without parental consent.

These were immediately challenged in lower courts and invalidated, all except in Missouri. Its parental consent law was sustained and went on to the Supreme Court. In 1976, in a case now known as the Danforth Decision, the high court threw out the Missouri law. But at the same time Missouri was before it, a challenge to the Massachusetts law was there too. The Supreme Court sent it back for reconsideration by the lower courts because it was somewhat different: giving the teenager the right to go to court to challenge her parents' no abortion decision. Now that case is back for a final Supreme Court ruling. The lower courts have been decided that the Massachusetts law is unconstitutional and the pro-parents' consent forces having appealed that decision. Robin? [Robert MacNeil] In addition to the oral arguments heard today by the Justices, a number of groups have filed friend of the court briefs. One signer of a brief approved by more than 50 organizations is Harriet Pilpel, a New York attorney. Ms. Pilpel is general counsel to Planned Parenthood, and she's active in the American Civil Liberties Union.

Ms. Pilpel, I gather in your brief today you argue that the Massachusetts law is unconstitutional. Why? [Harriet Pilpel] Well there are many reasons that-- legal and factual. Nobody disputes that it would be a good idea for young people to consult their parents if they're willing to do so. The only question posed by the Massachusetts law is what is the effect of a law which requires them to consult their parents in every case. The result of such a law is not to restore family unity, but rather to fracture a situation which is already badly broken up and force young people to go into childbirth that they don't want or to resort to illegal abortionists. What the Supreme Court held, as was just indicated, was that a flat requirement of parental consent in all cases violated minors' rights of privacy. And that right is obviously a very important and fundamental right. The Court, the United States Supreme Court, has said over and over again that minors are not second-class citizens, that they have all kinds of constitutional rights and that one of these constitutional rights is a right with reference to their own reproductive

lives, to take care of their own reproductive behavior. [Robert MacNeil] To put it very simply, your argument is that constitutionally, a girl cannot be required to get her parents' consent to have an abortion if she wants one. [Harriet Pilpel] Yes, that's true. The reason she can't constitutionally is partly that she can't, as a matter of fact, wishing simply does not make it so, and in this situation, the wish may be father to the thought, but it's not father to the fact. The fact is that a requirement of parental consent succeeds only in delaying an abortion if one is going to be performed and an abortion is much more dangerous after the initial weeks. It also succeeds in further widening the gap between parents and children. And in a very real sense, it's not necessary because it is not true that the only choices are between a minor consulting her parents or just consulting a doctor. There are all kinds of other counselors who are available, counselors whom she is willing

of her own free will to consult. [Robert MacNeil] Counselors such as? [Harriet Pilpel] Such as clergymen, social workers, counselors at abortion facilities, an older sister, an aunt, a friend of the family. In most cases, a minor has some adult whom she is willing to consult and talk with, but you could be reasonably certain that if she's not willing to consult and talk with her parents, it's because that relationship, at least with reference to sex, has been broken and is of no effect, and that happened a long time ago. [Robert MacNeil] If you reject the idea of parental consent, do you not violate the rights of parents to