Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Parental Rights

On May 1, 2007, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the parental rights portion of SB 1, enacted by the special session of the General Assembly in Fall 2005. Planned Parenthood had filed a lawsuit challenging section 188.250, RSMo., which provides for civil sanctions for anyone who “shall intentionally cause, aid, or assist a minor to obtain an abortion without the consent or consents required by sec. 188.028.” In addition to the minor’s own consent, the required consent consists either of the written consent of a parent or else an order of a juvenile court in lieu of parental consent.

One of the challenges to the law was that it would violate First Amendment rights by preventing counseling about the availability of abortion in other states. The Court ruled that if the statute would be interpreted to outlaw such counseling, then it would indeed violate the First Amendment. Therefore, the Court construed the term, “cause, aid, or assist a minor to obtain an abortion,” not to include providing information or counseling about abortion rights. The law, therefore, prohibits acts, not speech.

Another Planned Parenthood argument was that the law purported to regulate the conduct of out-of-state abortion clinics, and Missouri could not exercise control outside of its borders. The Court found that the statute did not, in fact, purport to regulate conduct that occurs “wholly outside of Missouri,” but only conduct that occurs inside Missouri. As such, the statute was constitutional.

The effect of the Court’s ruling can best be understood by examples. If a school counselor in Missouri tells a Missouri minor about the fact that abortions in Illinois do not require parental consent, that conduct is protected by the First Amendment, and he does not violate the law. If the counselor goes further and telephones another person to drive the minor to Illinois to obtain an abortion there without parental consent, then the counselor has performed an act to aid an abortion and does violate the law.

It is easy to think of additional hypothetical situations and ask whether or not the law imposes liability in them. Certainly there will be circumstances in which reasonable people differ on whether the law is violated or not. That is why we have courts, judges, and juries. Now that the statute has been upheld, it is to be hoped that Missouri parents and courts will not be shy about protecting the parents’ rights not to have strangers arrange abortions for their minor daughters without parental knowledge and consent.