---
title: "Bellotti v. Baird (II)"
description: "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,…"
type: "case"
court: "U.S. Supreme Court"
decided: "1979-07-02"
citation: "443 U.S. 622 (1979)"
docket: "78-329"
status: "Good law on judicial bypass framework"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/bellotti-v-baird-ii-1979.html"
---

# Bellotti v. Baird (II)

_Full caption: Bellotti, Attorney General of Massachusetts v. Baird et al._

**Citation:** 443 U.S. 622 (1979) · **Docket No.** 78-329

**Status:** Good law on judicial bypass framework

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Argued | February 27, 1979 |
| Decided | July 2, 1979 |
| Vote | 8-1 (plurality) |
| Majority author | Powell, J. (plurality) |
| Joined by | Burger, C.J.; Stewart, Rehnquist, JJ. (plurality); with Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, JJ. concurring in judgment |

## 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

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.

## Opinions

### Majority — Powell, J. (plurality)

_Joined by Burger, C.J.; Stewart, Rehnquist, JJ. (plurality); with Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, JJ. concurring in judgment_

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.

### Concurrence — Stevens, J.

_Joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, JJ._

Concurred in judgment on different grounds.

### Concurrence — Rehnquist, J.

_Not joined by any other justice_

Concurred separately.

### Dissent — White, J.

_Not joined by any other justice_

Argued minors do not have full abortion rights.

## Key quotes

> "Every minor must have the opportunity — if she so desires — to go directly to a court without first consulting or notifying her parents."
> — Powell, J. (plurality) · 443 U.S. at 647

## 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.

## Perspectives

The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case.

### Abolitionist framing

Abolitionists tend to reject judicial bypass as inadequate — they support broader personhood-based protection rather than procedural regulation.

### Mainstream pro-life framing

Mainstream pro-life groups support parental involvement laws as reducing minor abortions and enabling family communication.

### Pro-choice framing

Judicial bypass has been criticized as burdensome and traumatic for minors in difficult family situations.

## Significance

Established durable framework for minor abortion regulation; persists post-Dobbs where states still choose to regulate.

| Measure | Score |
| --- | --- |
| Overall significance | 4 / 10 |
| Legal precedential weight | 6 |
| Practical impact on access | 5 |
| Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 3 |
| Enduring relevance, 2026 | 4 |

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/622](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/622/)

## Related cases

**Cites earlier cases:**

- Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976)
- [Roe v. Wade (1973)](roe-v-wade-1973.md)

**Cited by later cases:**

- Akron v. Akron Center (1983)
- Ohio v. Akron Center (1990)
- [Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)](planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.md)
- 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.