Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth

1976-07-01

Headline: Missouri abortion rules partly blocked: Court struck down spouse and parental vetoes, invalidated a saline‑amniocentesis ban and an overly broad doctor‑liability rule, while upholding informed consent, records, and viability definition.

Holding: The Court held that Missouri’s law may require a woman’s written informed consent, reporting, and a medical definition of viability, but it struck down spouse and parental consent vetoes, the saline ban, and the broad physician‑liability provision.

Real World Impact:

Prevents husbands or parents from vetoing first‑trimester abortions.
Maintains required informed consent and confidential recordkeeping for abortions.
Invalidates saline ban and an overbroad doctor‑liability rule that could criminalize early abortions.

Topics: abortion access, parental consent, spousal consent, medical abortion methods, doctor liability

Summary

Background

A reproductive health clinic and two Missouri doctors sued state officials three days after a new Missouri law took effect in June 1974. The law regulated abortions at all stages and included a medical definition of viability, a written consent rule for women, requirements for spouse or parent consent in the first 12 weeks, a criminal and civil standard of care tied to protecting fetal life, a ban on saline amniocentesis after 12 weeks, and reporting rules for clinics and doctors. A three‑judge federal court upheld most provisions but struck part of the doctor‑liability rule; both sides appealed.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed each challenged provision against the Court’s earlier Roe and Doe decisions. It found the statute’s medical definition of “viability,” the woman’s requirement to sign an informed consent form, and the recordkeeping rules to be constitutional. But the Court held the State may not give a husband or a third party (a parent) an absolute veto over a woman’s abortion decision during the first trimester. It also found the flat ban on saline amniocentesis to be an unreasonable method restriction when it effectively blocks most post‑first‑trimester abortions, and it struck the law’s broad first sentence that imposed criminal liability on doctors for failing to preserve fetal life at all stages.

Real world impact

The decision lets doctors and clinics continue to require written patient consent and to keep confidential records, but it prevents husbands or parents from having an automatic veto over first‑trimester abortions. The ruling invalidates Missouri’s saline ban and an overbroad criminal standard for physicians and sends the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. Some agreed on parental consultation but thought carefully designed judicial alternatives might be allowed. Others disputed the factual finding about whether safer alternatives to saline were actually available in Missouri.