{"schema":"abhortion.org/case.v1/v1","id":"bellotti-v-baird-ii-1979","type":"case","case_name_short":"Bellotti v. Baird (II)","case_name_full":"Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts v. Baird et al.","citation":"443 U.S. 622 (1979)","docket_number":"78-329","status":"Good law on judicial bypass framework","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_argued":"1979-02-27","date_decided":"1979-07-02","vote":"8-1 (plurality)","question_presented":"Whether Massachusetts's requirement that unmarried minors obtain either parental consent or judicial authorization for abortion is constitutional.","holding":"The Massachusetts law is unconstitutional as construed by the state supreme court to give parents or judges an absolute veto. However, states may require parental consent so long as a confidential and expeditious judicial bypass procedure is available, allowing a mature minor to consent herself or, if immature, to demonstrate that abortion is in her best interests.","reasoning_summary":"Justice Powell's plurality established the 'judicial bypass' framework: states may require parental involvement for minors' abortions, but must provide an alternative procedure for minors who cannot or should not go to parents.","practical_effect":"Established the judicial bypass framework that has governed minors' abortion access for over 45 years. Most states adopted parental involvement statutes with bypass procedures.","opinions":[{"role":"majority","author":"Powell, J. (plurality)","joined_by":"Burger, C.J.; Stewart, Rehnquist, JJ. (plurality); with Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, JJ. concurring in judgment","summary":"The Massachusetts law is unconstitutional as construed by the state supreme court to give parents or judges an absolute veto. However, states may require parental consent so long as a confidential and expeditious judicial bypass procedure is available, allowing a mature minor to consent herself or, if immature, to demonstrate that abortion is in her best interests."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"Stevens, J.","joined_by":"Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, JJ.","summary":"Concurred in judgment on different grounds."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"Rehnquist, J.","summary":"Concurred separately."},{"role":"dissent","author":"White, J.","summary":"Argued minors do not have full abortion rights."}],"key_quotes":[{"quote":"Every minor must have the opportunity — if she so desires — to go directly to a court without first consulting or notifying her parents.","speaker":"Powell, J. (plurality)","location":"443 U.S. at 647"}],"perspectives":{"abolitionist":"Abolitionists tend to reject judicial bypass as inadequate — they support broader personhood-based protection rather than procedural regulation.","mainstream_prolife":"Mainstream pro-life groups support parental involvement laws as reducing minor abortions and enabling family communication.","prochoice":"Judicial bypass has been criticized as burdensome and traumatic for minors in difficult family situations."},"significance":{"overall":4,"legal_precedential_weight":6,"practical_impact_on_access":5,"movement_relevance_abolitionist":3,"enduring_relevance_2026":4,"rationale":"Established durable framework for minor abortion regulation; persists post-Dobbs where states still choose to regulate."},"sources":{"primary":[{"name":"supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/622","href":"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/622/"}]},"related_cases":{"cites_earlier":["Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976)","Roe v. Wade (1973)"],"cited_by_later":["Akron v. Akron Center (1983)","Ohio v. Akron Center (1990)","Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)","Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood (2006)"]},"notes":"The 'Bellotti II' name distinguishes this decision from Bellotti v. Baird I (1976), which had remanded the case on abstention grounds.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/bellotti-v-baird-ii-1979.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/bellotti-v-baird-ii-1979.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/bellotti-v-baird-ii-1979.json"}}