Supreme Court· 3/23/1981

H. L. v. Matheson

Citations

450 U.S. 398
101 S. Ct. 1164
67 L. Ed. 2d 388
1981 U.S. LEXIS 81
49 U.S.L.W. 4255

About this case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1981 United States Supreme Court case

H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, according to which a state may require a doctor to inform a teenaged girl's parents before performing an abortion or face criminal penalty.[1]

Overview

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._L._v._Matheson&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Overview")
]

A female minor, known by her initials H.L., was living in Utah with her parents when she became pregnant in 1978. A doctor advised H.L. that an abortion would be in her best medical interests. A Utah law enacted in 1974 required abortion providers to "[n]otify, if possible" the parents of any female under the age of majority who is scheduled to undergo an abortion, at least 24 hours before the abortion.[2] Violation was a misdemeanor subject to a fine up to $1000 and/or several months imprisonment. H.L's doctor's believed that "for [her] own reasons", she should proceed with the abortion without notifying her parents. A trial judge held the meeting, with H.L being the only witness present. During the trial, she confirmed the allegations of her complaint with one word answers. When the State tried asking her about why she didn't to tell her parents, H.L's counsel objected, saying it was unrelated to the laws Constitutional issue. H.L's doctor insisted that the only Constitutionally permissible requirements were the desire of the girl and the medical approval of a physician. The judge objected, construing the statute to require parental knowledge of the abortion "if [they are] able to contact them". After this, the judge entered findings of fact . He concluded that the appealant "is an appropriate representative to represent the class she purports to represent.". Then, he yet again construed the statute to require a notice to parents for the knowledge of the abortion "if it is physically possible". He finally concluded that statute § 76-7-304(2) "do[es] not unconstitutionally restrict the right of privacy of a minor to obtain an abortion or to enter into a doctor-patient relationship.".[3] He then dismissed the complaint. When reappealed, the court kept the statute unchanged with a 6-3 vote.[_citation needed
_]H.L. initiated a lawsuit as part of a proposed class action of unmarried unemancipated females, arguing that Utah's parental notification statute was unconstitutional. Scott M. Matheson , then the governor of Utah, was named as the defendant.

The case made its way to the Utah Supreme Court , where the law was upheld as consistent with _Roe v. Wade _ (1973). The judgment noted, among other points, that H.L.'s proposed class action was overly broad; and that the Utah statute mandated parental notification but did not grant parents authority to stop such an abortion.[4]

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._L._v._Matheson&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: References")
]

↑ H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981).
↑ Utah Code Annotated § 76-7-304(2). Note that as of 2008, the law has been revised to exclude parental notification requirement if a doctor advises an abortion is medically necessary to save the mother's life, avoid serious medical complications, the parents have a history of abuse towards the minor female, the pregnancy is a result of parental incest, or if the parents have not assumed responsibility for the minor's care and upbringing.
↑ Matheson, Scott. "H. L., etc., Appellant, v. Scott M. MATHESON et al" . law.cornell.edu. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved April 4, 2026.
↑ H. L. v. Matheson, 604 P.2d 907 (Utah 1979).

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._L._v._Matheson&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: External links")
]

Text of H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

United States Fourteenth Amendment case law

Due Process Clause

Equal Protection Clause

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H._L._v._Matheson&oldid=1351329073 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

H. L. v. Matheson

1 language Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

upholding a notice statute without a judicial bypass procedure as applied to an immature, dependent minor whose best interests would be served by notice
notice statutes are not equivalent to consent statutes because they do not give anyone a veto power of over a minor’s abortion decision
Constitution is not violated by statute requiring notice to the parents of an immature dependent minor seeking an abortion
“As applied to immature and dependent minors,” a notice law “plainly serves the important considerations of family integrity and protecting adolescents.”
importance of family justifies state requirement that minors notify parents before obtaining abortion
Utah statute as applied to an unemancipated minor living with and dependent upon her parents and making no claim or showing as to her maturity or as to her relations with her parents held constitutional

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Burger, Stewart, White, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, Marshall, Brennan, Blackmun

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

174 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

87 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named H. L. v. Matheson

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.