The U.S. Supreme Court on July 3 rejected Montana’s request to reinstate a long-blocked law that requires parental consent before a doctor may perform an abortion on a minor.

Although the state’s Parental Consent for Abortion Act was enacted in 2013, it has been held up in litigation since then and has never taken effect. The law would require girls under the age of 18 to obtain notarized, written parental consent before seeking an abortion unless a judicial waiver is granted.

Montana’s Constitution has recognized a right to abortion since 1999. Current state law allows abortions until a fetus is deemed viable outside the womb, usually at about 24 weeks. In November 2024, state voters approved the “Right to Abortion Initiative.” The measure amended the state constitution to include a “right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s new decision to deny the state’s petition took the form of an unsigned order in State of Montana v. Planned Parenthood of Montana. The high court did not explain its decision.

No justices dissented, but Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas attached a statement explaining why they voted not to hear the case.

In August 2024, the Montana Supreme Court held in Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State of Montana that the state law places an undue burden on minors seeking abortions, violating “the fundamental right of a minor to control her body and destiny” as guaranteed by the Montana Constitution.

In a petition filed on Jan. 10 to appeal the state supreme court’s ruling, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen told the U.S. Supreme Court that the 2013 state statute was consistent with Roe v. Wade (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court precedent in effect at the time, which said there was a right to abortion until fetal viability.

The nation’s highest court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 in a case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court held that there is no federal constitutional right to abortion and returned regulation of the procedure to the states.

The petition said that the state law complied with the U.S. Supreme Court’s pre-Dobbs cases concerning “parental rights and a minor’s right to abortion” by allowing minors to go to court to obtain permission for an abortion without parental consent.

“Yet the Montana Supreme Court held that the Consent Act violates a minor’s fundamental right to privacy because it conditions a minor’s abortion access on parental consent,” the petition said.

In other words, the state supreme court found that although parents enjoy a fundamental right over the custody and care of their children, their right does not supersede a minor’s right to have an abortion.

Knudsen asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the parents’ right “includes a right to know and participate in decisions concerning their minor child’s medical care, including a minor’s decision to seek an abortion.”

Confusion over parents’ and minors’ rights “will only grow until this Court intervenes and defines the scope of parents’ fundamental rights,” the petition said.

Abortion provider Planned Parenthood of Montana, which filed the original lawsuit challenging the law, filed a brief opposing the petition, arguing that the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling is correct.

The brief said none of the pre-Dobbs rulings found that there was a constitutional guarantee regarding parental notice or consent.

“And the absence of a federal right to abortion is not a basis for trampling state constitutional rights. Dobbs does not diminish the independent force of these state constitutional safeguards,” the brief said.

In his statement, Alito wrote that because of the way the case was litigated, it is “a poor vehicle” for deciding whether a parent’s fundamental right to control his or her children includes “a right to know and participate in decisions concerning” a minor child’s medical care, “including a minor’s decision to seek an abortion.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to deny the state’s petition should not be interpreted as a rejection of the argument that the petition asks the court to decide, Alito added.

Caden Pearson contributed to this report.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared July 6, 2025, in The Epoch Times.