H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981)

Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Abigail English and Pauline H. Tesler for the Coalition for the Medical Rights of Women et al.; and by Eve W. Paul and Harriet F. Pilpel for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al. Dennis J. Horan, Victor O. Rosenblum, John D. Gorby, Patrick A. Trueman, and Dolores V. Horan filed a brief for Americans United for Life as amicus curiae urging affirmance. Lynn D. Wardle and Robert W. Barker filed a brief for the Utah Association of Women et al. as amici curiae.

Whether parents of a minor are liable under Utah law for the expense of an abortion and related aftercare is not disclosed by the record. Utah also provides by statute that no abortion may be performed unless a “voluntary and informed written consent” is first obtained by the attending physician from the patient. In order for such a consent to be “voluntary and informed,” the patient must be advised at a minimum about available adoption services, about fetal development, and about foreseeable complications and risks of an abortion. See Utah Code Ann. §76-7-305 (1978). In Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, *401428 U. S. 52, 65-67 (1976), we rejected a constitutional attack on written consent provisions.

Utah Code Ann. §§76-7-314 (3), 76-3-204 (1), 76-3-301 (3) (1978).

Appellant’s counsel stated in his jurisdictional statement and again in his brief that the physician concluded not only that an abortion would be in appellant’s best interests, but also that parental notification would not be in appellant’s best interests. However, at oral argument, counsel corrected this statement and conceded that there is no evidence to support this assertion. Tr. of Oral Arg. 8, 17.

The record does not reveal whether appellant proceeded with the abortion.

The trial judge allowed appellant to proceed without appointment of a guardian ad litem. He noted that a guardian would be required to notify the parents.

The testimony was as follows: “BY MR. DOLOWITZ [appellant’s counsel]: “Q At the time that the Complaint in this matter was signed, you were pregnant? “A Yes. “Q You had consulted with a counselor about that pregnancy? “A Yeah. “Q You had determined after talking to the counselor that you felt you should get an abortion? “A Yes. “Q You felt that you did not want to notify your parents— “A Right. “Q —of that decision? You did not feel for your own reasons that you could discuss it with them? “A Right. “Q After discussing the matter with a counselor, you still believed that you should not discuss it with your parents? “A Right. “Q And they shouldn’t be notified? “A Right. “Q After talking the matter over with a counselor, the counselor concurred in your decision that your parents should not be notified? “A Right. “Q You were advised that an abortion couldn’t be performed without notifying them? “A Yes. “Q You then came to me to see about filing a suit? “A Right. “Q You and I discussed it as to whether or not you had a right to do what you wanted to do? “A Yes. “Q You decided that, after our discussion, you should still proceed with the action to try to obtain an abortion without notifying your parents ? “A Right. “Q Now, at the time that you signed the Complaint and spoke with the counselor and spoke with me, you were in the first trimester of pregnancy, within your first twelve weeks of pregnancy? *403“A Yes. “Q You feel that, from talking to the counselor and thinking the situation over and discussing it with me, that you could make the decision on your own that you wished to abort the pregnancy? “A Yes. “Q You are living at home? “A Yes. “Q You still felt, even though you were living at home with your parents, that you couldn’t discuss the matter with them? “A Right.” Tr. 5-7.

“BY MR. McCarthy [counsel for the State]: “Q . . . Are you still living at home? “A Yes. “Q Are you dependent on your parents? “A Yes. “Q All your money comes from them? “A Yes. “Q How old are you now? “A Fifteen. “Q Aside from the issue of abortion, do you have any reason to feel that you can’t talk to your parents about other problems? “A Yes. “Q What are those reasons? “MR. DOLOWITZ: Now you are moving into the problem area that I indicated. . . .” Id., at 8.

Id., at 10. Appellant repeatedly pressed this point despite the trial court’s statements that it could “conceive of a situation where a child probably wouldn’t have to tell the parents” and that the statute “might be [unconstitutional as it relates to a particular fact situation but [constitutional as it relates to another fact situation.” Id., at 10, 17. There is no evidence to support the “surmise” in the dissent, post, at 438, n. 24, that “appellant expects family conflict over the abortion decision.”

Tr. 18.

The trial judge adopted, verbatim, findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by appellant. The findings, the conclusions, and the opinion of the State Supreme Court make no mention whatsoever of the precise limits of the class.

The trial judge also ruled that the statute does not violate 42 U. S. C. § 1983.

In Bellotti II, by contrast, the principal class consisted of “unmarried [pregnant] minors in Massachusetts who have adequate capacity to give a valid and informed consent [to abortion], and who do not wish to involve their parents.” 443 U. S., at 626 (emphasis supplied). The courts considered the rights of “all pregnant minors who might be affected” by the statute. Id., at 627, n. 5.

The record shows that the State unsuccessfully argued in the trial court that it should be permitted to inquire into appellant’s degree of maturity. Tr. 11. Justice Stevens and the dissent argue that the Utah Supreme Court held that the statute may validly be applied to all members of the class described in the complaint. Post, at 421, 430, 431, 432-433. However, as we have shown, neither of the state courts mentioned the scope or limits of the class. See n. 10, supra. Moreover, appellant’s counsel prepared the findings and conclusions. In addition to considerations of standing, we construe the ambiguity against appellant.

There is no authority for the view expressed in the dissent that the statute would apply to "minors with emergency health care needs.” Post, at 450-451. Appellant does not so contend, and the Utah Supreme Court in this case took pains to say that time is of the essence in an abortion decision. 604 P. 2d 907, 913 (1979). When the specific question was properly posed in Bellotti II, the Massachusetts statute was construed by the state court not to apply in such cases. 443 U. S., at 630. The same is true for minors with hostile home situations, a class referred to by appellant’s amici curiae and by the dissent, post, at 437-441.

Bellotti II, 443 U. S., at 642-643, 653-656; Danforth, 428 U. S., at 74.

Bellotti II, supra, at 640, 649; id., at 657 (dissenting opinion); Danforth, supra, at 90-91 (concurring opinion); see Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U. S. 132, 145, 147 (1976) (Bellotti I); cf. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678, 709-710 (1977).

The main premise of the dissent seems to be that a requirement of notice to the parents is the functional equivalent of a requirement of parental consent. See post, at 437-441. In Bellotti II, however, we expressly declined to equate notice requirements with consent requirements. 443 U. S., at 640, 657.

Bellotti II, supra, at 637-639. The short shrift given by the dissent to “parental authority and family integrity,” post, at 447, runs contrary to a long line of constitutional cases in this Court. See cases cited supra, at 410.

Bellotti II, supra, at 634-637.

Abortion is associated with an increased risk of complication in subsequent pregnancies. Maine, Does Abortion Affect Later Pregnancies?, 11 Family Planning Perspectives 98 (1979). The emotional and psychological effects of the pregnancy and abortion experience are markedly more severe in girls under 18 than in adults. Wallerstein, Kurtz, & Bar-Din, Psychosocial Sequelae of Therapeutic Abortion in Young Unmarried Women, 27 Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 828 (1972); see also Babikian & Goldman, A Study in Teen-Age Pregnancy, 128 Am. J. Psychiatry 755 (1971).

At least five States have enacted parental notification statutes containing brief mandatory waiting periods. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §40:-1299.35.5 (West Supp. 1981) (24 hours’ actual notice or 72 hours’ constructive notice except for court-authorized abortions); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., ch. 112, § 12S (West Supp. 1981) (24 hours); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 22, § 1597 (1980) (24 hours); N. D. Cent. Code § 14-02.1-03 (Supp. 1979) (24 hours); Tenn. Code Ann. §39-302 (Supp. 1979) (two days).

Members of the particular class now before us in this case have no constitutional right to notify a court in lieu of notifying their parents. See Bellotti II, supra, at 647. This case does not require us to decide in what circumstances a state must provide alternatives to parental notification.

See Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-5 (4) (f) (1977) (permitting any female to give informed consent “to any health care not prohibited by law . . . in connection with her pregnancy or childbirth”).

See also Bellotti II, 443 U. S., at 643-644; Bellotti I, 428 U. S., at 148-149; Danforth, 428 U. S., at 65-67, 79-81; Connecticut v. Menillo, 423 U. S. 9, 11 (1975); West Side Women’s Services, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 450 F. Supp. 796, 798 (ND Ohio), affirmance order, 582 F. 2d 1281 (CA6), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 983 (1978).

Appellant argues that the statute violates her right to secure necessary treatment from a physician who, in the exercise of his best medical judgment, does not believe the parents should be notified. Since there is no evidence that the physician had such an opinion, we decline to reach this question. See supra, at 401, n. 3, and 405-407. The dissenting opinion purports to see in the Court’s opinion “a clear signal” as to how the Court will decide a future case concerning this or a similar statute, and goes on to forecast a successful challenge on the *414merits. Today, of course, the Court’s function is to decide only the question properly presented in this case, and there is no occasion to intimate or predict a view as to the proper resolution of some future case. Speaking for the unanimous Court in Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U. S. 529 (1976), Justice Marshall took note of the impropriety of deciding constitutional questions “in the absence of ‘an adequate and full-bodied record.’ ” Id., at 546, quoting Public Affairs Associates, Inc. v. Rickover, 369 U. S. Ill, 113 (1962).

Section 76-7-304 is quoted in full in the Court’s opinion. Ante, at 400.

Appellant’s testimony on direct examination is quoted in full in the Court’s opinion. Ante, at 402-403, n. 6.

Appellant’s testimony on cross-examination is quoted in full in the Court’s opinion. Ante, at 403, n. 7.

After his direct examination of appellant and the State’s brief cross-examination, appellant’s lawyer insisted repeatedly during subsequent argument that “there is no relevancy to any other facts,” Tr. 17; that “the particular facts that come before a [minor’s doctor], are irrelevant,” id., at 18; and that “[t]he specific facts of any individual case, no matter how ridiculous they are or how strong or weak they are, really become irrelevant,” ibid. In summarizing his position, appellant’s lawyer stated: “Our position is that it is the doctor/patient relationship that is the key. If the doctor determines he should go ahead with the patient, then he should. The specific facts in any case, whether [the doctor] is wrong or right, are [constitutionally protected to make that decision and go ahead and act on it. This is why I say it is irrelevant.” Ibid.

At the end of the evidentiary hearing, appellant’s lawyer framed the trial court’s ruling as follows: “If your ruling is that ‘if possible’ [as used in the statute means “physically possible”] and there are no circumstances whatever that justify the violation of the statute, then the issue is closed.” Id., at 19.

Because this case is a class action, it might be presumed that other members could raise the question whether a pregnant minor has a right to abortion, without parental notice, upon a showing that she is mature or that her parents will interfere with her abortion. But the record in this case contains no facts to support a presumption that the class includes such members. The only complaint allegations about the class are that appellant’s claims “are typical of the claims of all members of the class,” and that the class consists of “minor women who are suffering unwanted pregnancies and desire to terminate the pregnancies but may not do so inasmuch as their physicians will not perform an abortion upon them without compliance with the provisions of Section 76-7-304 (2).” Complaint ¶ 10. Thus, the record supports only the conclusion that the class consists entirely of pregnant minors who assert the identical claim that appellant presents: a constitutional right to an abortion without notifying their parents, and without claiming to be mature or that notification would not be in their best interest. In short, the class members — like appellant — assert an absolute right to make this decision themselves, independently of everyone except a physician.

The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law after the evidentiary hearing. Paragraph 7 of the trial court’s findings reads: “The plaintiff consulted with a counselor to assist her in deciding whether or not she should terminate her pregnancy. She determined, after consultation with her counselor, that she should secure an abortion, but was advised when consulting her physician that under the provisions of Section 76-7-304 (2), Utah Code Annotated, 1953, that he believed along with her that she should be aborted and that he felt it was in her best medical interest to do so but he could not and would not perform an abortion upon her without informing her parents prior to aborting her because it was required of him by that statute and he was unwilling to perform an abortion upon her without complying with the provisions of the statute even though he believed it was best to do so.” Civil No. C-78-2719 (Dec. 26, 1978). Precisely what this paragraph finds is ambiguous. At the least, it finds that appellant “consulted” a physician and that the physician agreed with appellant that an abortion would be in appellant’s best medical interest. The final portion of the finding — “he was unwilling to perform an abortion upon her without complying with the provisions of the statute even though he believed it was best to do so” — could be read to find that the physician also agreed with appellant that “it was best” to “perform an abortion upon her without complying with the provisiofn]” requiring parental notice. Or, the final portion could be read to find only that the physician would not perform an abortion without complying with the statute even though he believed that “it was best” to abort appellant’s pregnancy. In light of appellant’s limited allegations and testimony, and the legal argument of her lawyer, the trial court’s finding cannot be read as saying that the physician determined that appellant’s parents would react hostilely or obstructively to notice of appellant's abortion decision.

While the medical judgment of a physician of course is to be respected, there is no reason to believe as a general proposition that even the most conscientious physician’s interest in the overall welfare of a minor can be equated with that of most parents. Moreover, abortion clinics, now readily available in most urban communities, may be operated on a commercial basis where abortions often may be obtained “on demand.” See Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52, 91-92, n. 2 (1976) (Stewart, J., concurring); Bellotti II, 443 U. S., at 641, n. 21.

Although Bellotti II involved a statute requiring parental consent, the rationale of the plurality opinion with respect to this need is applicable here.

The dissenting opinion of Justice Marshall, which would hold the Utah statute invalid on its face, elevates the decision of the minor and her physician to an absolute status ignoring state and parental interests.

My conclusion, in this case and in Danforth, that a state legislature may rationally decide that most parents will, when informed of their daughter’s pregnancy, act with her welfare in mind is consistent with the “pages of human experience that teach that parents generally do act in the child’s best interests” relied upon by the Court in Parham v. J. R., *424442 U. S. 584, 602-603 (1979). It is also consistent with Justice Brennan’s opinion in Parham, which I joined. Id., at 625-639. As the Court noted in Parham, the presumption that parents act in the best interests of their children may be rebutted by “experience and reality.” Id., at 602-603. In my opinion, nothing in the fact that a minor child has become pregnant, and therefore may be confronted with the abortion decision, undercuts the general validity of the presumption. However, when parents decide to surrender custody of their child to a mental hospital and thereby destroy the ongoing family relationship, that very decision raises an inference that parental authority is not being exercised in the child’s best interests. See id., at 631-632 (Brennan, J., dissenting in part). Accordingly, while the abortion decision and the commitment decision are of comparable gravity, reliance upon the’ “pages of human experience” is, in my judgment, more appropriate in the former case than in the latter.

The Court’s unwillingness to decide whether the Utah statute may constitutionally be applied to the entire class certified by the state courts presumably rests on the assumption that requiring notice to the parents of a mature or emancipated minor might prevent such a minor from obtaining an abortion. See ante, at 406. Almost by definition, however, a woman intellectually and emotionally capable of making important decisions without parental assistance also should be capable of ignoring any parental disapproval. Furthermore, if every minor with the wisdom of an adult has a constitutional right to be treated as an adult, a uniform minimum voting age is surely suspect. Instead of simply enforcing general rules promulgated by the legislature, perhaps the judiciary should grant" hearings to all young persons desirous of establishing their status as mature, emancipated minors instead of confining that privilege to unmarried pregnant young women.

Under the majority's view, to assure standing, the plaintiff pregnant minor simply need allege her desire to obtain an abortion, her inability to do so because of the statute, and her view that she is emancipated, mature, or that it is in her best interests to have an abortion performed without notifying her parents. The majority finds no standing problem where the complaint alleges that the plaintiff is emancipated or mature, and thus reaffirms the standing analysis employed in Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U. S. 622 (1979) (Bellotti II). See ante, at 406, n. 12. In addition, the Court relies in part on a decision by the Federal District Court in Utah, which enjoined application of the same Utah statute involved here to emancipated minors. L. R. v. Hansen, Civil No. C-80-0078J (Feb. 8, 1980). The Court apparently contemplates that similar challenges will meet with success in the future. For example, the District Court in L. R. v. Hansen also accorded intervenor status and awarded preliminary relief to a minor woman who, like appellant, is under 17 years old and is dependent upon a parent with whom she resides. The only difference between the allegations of the instant appellant and those of that inter-venor is the latter’s express allegation that parental notice would result in her expulsion from home and destruction of her relationship with her parent. L. R. v. Hansen, Civil No. C-80-0078J (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶4) (Oct., 24, 1980). Finally, the Court today does not question our prior decision upholding the standing of physicians to challenge abortion restrictions. See n. 4, infra.

In essence, the Court concludes that because appellant neglected to make specific allegations about herself and her situation, she “lacks 'the personal stake in the controversy needed to confer standing’ to advance the overbreadth argument,” ante, at 406 (quoting Harris v. McRae, 448 U. S. 297, 320 (1980)). The majority thus assumes that a plaintiff raising an overbreadth challenge to an abortion statute must allege that she herself falls within the statute’s overbroad reach. The quotation from Harris actually refers to an entirely different kind of standing issue: there the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to allege that they were in a position either to seek abortions or to receive Medicaid, and thus they lacked the concrete adverseness necessary to advance their challenge to the Medicaid limit on abortion funding. None of the cases cited for this point in Harris apply to the instant appeal. See O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974) (plaintiffs lack standing because of failure to allege specific injury); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 32 (1962) (petitioners “lack standing to enjoin criminal prosecutions under Mississippi’s breach-of-peace statutes, since they do not allege that they have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution under them”). A standing limitation on overbreadth challenges to an abortion statute has roots in a context hardly analogous to the instant case. For while we have frequently ruled that criminal defendants lack standing to challenge a statute’s overbreadth when their conduct indisputedly falls within the statute’s legitimate core, e. g., United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U. S. 29 (1963); United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612 (1954); Williams v. United States, 341 U. S. 97 (1951), these rulings bear little relationship to appellant’s challenge to a State’s restriction of her exercise of a fundamental right. See Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 (1976); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973). More relevant, I believe, is our analysis of standing to claim that a statute’s overbreadth affects fundamental liberties, primarily those guaranteed by the First Amendment. Because of the risk that exercise of personal freedoms may be chilled by broad regulation, we permit facial overbreadth challenges without a showing that the moving party’s conduct falls within the protected core. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972); Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611 (1971); United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258 (1967); Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147 (1969); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536 (1965); Aptheker v. Secretary of *428 State, 378 U. S. 500 (1964); Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290 (1951). See also United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214 (1876) (facial challenge under Fifteenth Amendment).

See n. 1, swpra. The Court does not question that exceptions from a parental notice requirement are necessary for minors emancipated from the custody or control of their parents, see n. 48, infra, and for minors able to demonstrate their maturity for the purpose of choosing to have an abortion, ante, at 406-407. See also Bellotti II, 443 U. S., at 651 (Powell, J.); id., at 653 (Stevens, J.). Nor does the Court depart from the view, made explicit in Justice Powell’s opinion in Bellotti II, supra, at 651, that a State cannot require parental notice when it would not be in the minor’s best interests to do so. This position is articulated anew today by Justice Powell, ante, at 420, and bolstered by the majority, which acknowledges the need for exception where parental notification interferes with emergency medical treatment, ante, at 407, n. 14, and which leaves open the possibility of relief where the minor makes a “claim or showing as to . . . her relations with her parents,” ante, at 407, or demonstrates a “hostile home situatio[n],” ante, at 407, n. 14. See also L. R. v. Hansen, Civil No. C-80-0078J (Utah, Feb. 8, 1980, and Oct. 24, 1980).

It is especially noteworthy that we have not refrained from according to physicians, threatened with the personal risk of prosecution, standing to challenge abortion restrictions by asserting the rights of any of their patients. E. g., Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, supra, at 62; Doe v. Bolton, supra; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965).

In the instant case, application of the prudential rule causes undue commingling of jurisdictional and merits issues. For here, the third-party interests do not even come into play until appellant wishes to rebut the State’s interests, which themselves are asserted only after appellant has established a burden on her protected interests. First, the appellant must satisfy a court that, on the merits, her fundamental right to privacy in consulting her physician about an abortion is burdened by the Utah statute. Only then need the State assert its countervailing state interests, which here include promoting family autonomy and parental authority. And only in rebuttal would appellant next challenge as overbroad the means employed by the State, for the absolute ban regulates the abortion decision of emancipated and mature minors, and others whose best interests call for an abortion without parental notice. Thus, in the name of prudence, the majority’s standing analysis depends upon its evaluation of the complicated merits.

Appellant’s consultation with three professionals casts substantial *430doubt on Justice Powell’s suggestion, see ante, at 418, that appellant “desires not to explain to anyone her reasons either for wanting the abortion or for not wanting to notify her parents.”

This portion of the transcript is set out in full ante, at 402-403, n. 6, 403, n. 7. Justice Powell correctly reports, ante, at 416-417, that the in-chambers hearing elicited from appellant statements essentially identical to her complaint. And it is also true that counsel for appellant objected to inquiries by the appellees and the trial judge regarding appellant’s exact reasons for not wanting to talk with her parents about her pregnancy or other matters. What Justice Powell neglects to note, however, is that counsel’s objections stemmed from the trial court’s own ruling that any facts specific to appellant's situation would be irrelevant to the physician’s duty under the statute to notify her parents of an abortion decision. Because the trial judge ruled that the statute and its sanctions would apply regardless of the pregnant minor’s personal reasons for opposing parental notification, the judge sustained the objections to questions about appellant’s particular reasons. Tr. 14r-20, App. 31-36. It is this ruling that is the legal basis for the decision below, and not the trial judge’s preliminary comments cited by the majority, ante, at 403, n. 8.

I also doubt the wisdom in pinning a minor’s success in challenging a *431blanket parental notice requirement to consideration of her particular situation by judges, as opposed to others who are more regularly involved in the counseling of adolescents. Cf. Bellotti II, 443 U. S., at 655-656 (Stevens, J.).

As the Court observed in Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U. S. 156, 176 (1974), the federal class action procedure “was intended to insure that the judgment, whether favorable or not, would bind all class members who did not request exclusion from the suit.” The binding effect of the class action’s disposition poses serious due process concerns where the interests of class members are not properly represented. 7A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1765 (1972). Where review of the claims asserted is impaired by an obvious lack of homogenity in the class approved by the trial court, the reviewing court must remand “for reconsideration of the class definition,” Kremens v. Bartley, 431 U. S. 119, 134-135 (1977), and for a determination whether the named plaintiff is a proper representative of the class, Martin v. Thompson Tractor Co., 486 F. 2d 510, 511 (CA5 1973).

E. g., Bogus v. American Speech & Hearing Assn., 582 F. 2d 277 (CA3 1978); Dellums v. Powell, 184 U. S. App. D. C. 275, 566 F. 2d 167 (1977), cert. denied, 438 U. S. 916 (1978); Barnett v. W. T. Grant Co., 518 F. 2d 543 (CA4 1975); Arkansas Ed. Assn. v. Board of Ed. of Portland, Arkansas School Dist., 446 F. 2d 763 (CA8 1971); Gold Strike Stamp Co. v. Christensen, 436 F. 2d 791 (CA10 1970). It is difficult to conclude that the trial judge below in fact abused his discretion in approving the class. Other courts have approved similar classes represented by similar named plaintiffs, e. g., Gary-Northwest Indiana Women’s Services v. Bowen, 421 F. Supp. 734 (ND Ind. 1976) (unmarried pregnant 16-year-old proper representative for class of unmarried pregnant minors under 18 challenging abortion restriction), summarily aff’d, 429 U. S. 1067 (1977). Conflict within the class, moreover, seems unlikely, for “it is difficult to imagine why any person in the class appellant represents would have an interest in seeing [the challenged statute] upheld.” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 403, n. 13 (1975).

A class may need to be redefined, e. g., Gesicki v. Oswald, 336 F. *433Supp. 371, 374 (SDNY 1971) (three-judge court), divided into subclasses, e. g., Francis v. Davidson, 340 F. Supp. 351 (Md. 1972) (three-judge court), or otherwise modified, to adequately protect its members’ interests. See generally 7 Wright & Miller, supra, §§ 1758-1771 (1972 and Supp. 1980). The majority mistakenly assumes, ante, at 406, n. 13, that it is free to rewrite the class as approved by the trial court because that court based its class definition on submissions from the plaintiff. This assumption runs counter to the general practice in both state and federal courts whereby the party seeking class certification proposes a class definition which is then subject to challenge by the opposing party. See 1 H. Newberg, Class Actions 644 (1977); 5 id., at 1376, 1403. Appellees challenged the class without success, and the State Supreme Court never questioned the trial court’s approval of appellant’s class.

See ante, at 420-421 (opinion of Stevens, J.). Justice Powell reasons, ante, at 417, n. 6, that the class members cannot raise the overbreadth claims because the record fails to disclose that they wish to raise such claims. In my view, the record is quite to the contrary. The class members, through their class representative, unequivocally raised in the complaint the over-breadth challenge to the Utah statute. Complaint ¶ 17, App. 6. This claim, along with the other allegations in the complaint, provided the context in which the trial judge approved appellant as class representative. In so approving, the trial court was obliged to ensure that appellant’s allegations would adequately protect the interests of the class members, who would be bound by the judgment. If a reviewing court subsequently alters the claims that can be asserted by the named plaintiff, protection of the class interests requires a remand for reconsideration of the adequacy of the named plaintiff as class representative.

See also Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678, 684-685 (1977); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S., at 482-485.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 384-386 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967).

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942). See also Cleveland Board of Education v. La Fleur, 414 U. S. 632 (1974).

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453 (1972); Griswold v. Connecticut, supra; Carey v. Population Services International, supra; Poe v. [filman, 367 U. S. 497, 539 (1961) (Harlan, J., dissenting) (ban on contraception is “intolerable and unjustifiable invasion of privacy in the conduct of the most intimate concerns of an individual’s personal life”).

See also Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891) (“No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law”).

The right has often been termed “the right to be let alone.” See Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandéis, J., dissenting) (quoted with approval in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 564 (1969), and Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, at 453-454, n. 10). Defining the spheres within which the government may not act without sufficient justification, the notion of privacy “emanates from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we live.” Poe v. Ullman, supra, at 521 (Douglas, J., dissenting).

“Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority. Minors, as well as adults, are protected by the Constitution and possess constitutional rights. See, e. g., Breed v. Jones, 421 U. S. 519 (1975); Goss v. Lopez, 419 U. S. 565 (1975); Tinker v. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969); In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967). The Court indeed, however, long has recognized that the State has somewhat broader authority to regulate the activities of children than of adults. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S., at 170; Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629 (1968).” Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S., at 74-75. See also Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954) (children entitled to equal protection in schools). The privacy right does not-necessarily guarantee that “every minor, regardless of age or maturity, may give effective consent for termination of her pregnancy.” Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, supra, at 75. Utah, however, assigns this consent authority to a woman of any age who seeks pregnancy-related medical care, Utah Code Ann. §78-14r-5 (4)(f) (1977), subject to the State’s informed consent requirements, see Utah Code Ann. §76-7-305 (1978); §78-14-5 (1977). This *436appeal does not present the broad issue of when may a State require parental consent for a surgical procedure on a minor child, 604 P. 2d 907, 910, n. 5 (Utah 1979). At issue here is only the scope of the minor’s constitutional privacy right in the face of a statutory parental notice requirement.

In striking down a related Utah prohibition against family planning assistance for minors absent parental consent, a Federal District Court reasoned that the “financial, psychological and social problems arising from teenage pregnancy and motherhood argue for our recognition of the right of minors to privacy as being equal to that of adults.” T. H. v. Jones, 425 F. Supp. 873, 881 (Utah 1975), summarily aif’d on other grounds, 425 U. S. 986 (1976).

Appellees also argue that “[i]t is difficult to contemplate a relationship where the right of privacy as formulated in the abortion context could be less relevant than in the confines of the nuclear family.” Brief for Appellees 22. This view, however, was expressly rejected in Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, supra, at 75.

Realization of this ideal, however, must depend on the quality of emotional attachments within the family, and not on legal patterns imposed by the State. See Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 255 (1978); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S., at 506.

Nothing prevents the physician from encouraging the minor to consult her parents; only the minor who .strenuously objects will remain burdened by the notice requirement.

The record here contains little about appellant’s situation because the trial judge excluded any such evidence as irrelevant to the facial challenge to the mandatory notice requirement. In light of her claim that the notice requirement inhibits the exercise of her right to choose an abortion, however, we may surmise that appellant expects family conflict over the abortion decision. Indeed, the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, quoted ante, at 402-403, n. 6, 403, n. 7 (opinion of Burger, C. J.), demonstrates that consultation with her social worker, her physician, and her lawyer did not alter appellant’s steadfast belief that she could not discuss the issue with her parents. The records in other cases are also instructive as to the interference posed by some parents to the exercise of some minor’s privacy right. See L. R. v. Hansen, Civil No. C-80-0078J (Utah, Oct. 24, 1980) (preliminary relief awarded to minor alleging parent expelled from home minor sister who disclosed facts of pregnancy and abortion); see Women’s Community Health Center, Inc. v. Cohen, 477 F. Supp. 542, 548 (Me. 1979) (expert affidavits that some parents “will pressure the minor, causing great emotional distress and otherwise disrupting the family relationship”); Baird v. Bellotti, 450 F. Supp. 997, 1001 (Mass. 1978) (uncontested evidence some parents “would insist on an undesired marriage, or on continuance of the pregnancy as punishment” or even physically harm the minor); Wynn v. Carey, 582 F. 2d 1375, 1388, n. 24 (CA7 1978) (suggesting same problems); In re Diane, 318 A. 2d 629, 630 (Del. Ch. 1974) (father opposes minor’s abortion on religious grounds); State v. Koome, 84 Wash. 2d 901, 908, 530 P. 2d 260, 265 (1975) (parent thinks forcing daughter to bear child will deter her future pregnancies). See Margaret S. v. Edwards, 488 F. Supp. 181 (ED La. 1980). Parents also may oppose a minor’s decision not to abort. E. g., In re Smith, 16 Md. App. 209, 295 A. 2d 238 (1972). See generally F. Furstenberg, Unplanned Parenthood: The Social Consequences of Teenage Childbearing 54 (1976); Jolly, Young, Female, and Outside the Law, in Teenage Women in the Juvenile Justice System: Changing Values 97, 102 (1979) (“When a young girl becomes pregnant, many families refuse to allow her back into their home”); Osofsky & *439Osofsky, Teenage Pregnancy: Psychosocial Considerations, 21 Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 1161, 1164 — 1165 (1978). See also J. Bedger, Teenage Pregnancy 123-124 (1980) (large majority of sampled pregnant minors predict parental opposition to their abortions).

Women’s Community Health Center, Inc. v. Cohen, supra, at 548 (affidavits showing parental notice “may cause an adolescent to delay seeking assistance with her pregnancy, increasing the hazardousness of an abortion should she choose one”); Cates, Adolescent Abortions in the United States, 1 J. Adolescent Health Care 18, 24 (1980); Bracken & Kasl, Delay in Seeking Induced Abortion: A Review and Theoretical Analysis, 121 Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1008, 1013 (1975); Hofmann, Consent and Confidentiality and Their Legal and Ethical Implications for Adolescent Medicine, in Medical Care of the Adolescent 42, 51 (J. Gallagher, F. Heald & D. Garell eds., 3d ed. 1976). If she decides to abort after the first trimester of pregnancy, the minor faces more serious health risks. Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 163 (1973); Benditt, Second-Trimester Abortion in the United States, 11 Family Planning Perspectives 358 (1979); Cates, Schulz, Crimes, & Tyler, The Effect of Delay and Method Choice on the Risk of Abortion Morbidity, 9 Family Planning Perspectives 266 (1977). If she decides to bear the child, her health risks are also greater than if she had a first trimester abortion. Cates, 1 J. Adolescent Health Care, supra, at 24; Cates & Tietze, Standardized Mortality Rates Associated with Legal Abortion: United States 1972-1975, 10 Family Planning Perspectives 109 (1978) (abortion within first 16 weeks of pregnancy safer than carrying pregnancy to term); “The Earlier the Safer” Applies to all Abortions, 10 Family Planning Perspectives 243 (1978). See also Zaekler, Andelman, & Bauer, The Young Adolescent as an Obstetric Risk, 103 Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 305 (1969) (complications associated with childbirth by minors).

Women’s Community Health Center, Inc. v. Cohen, supra, at 548 (affidavits that minor may turn to illegal abortion rather than have parents notified). See also Kahan, Baker, & Freeman, The Effect of *440Legalized Abortion on Morbidity Resulting from Criminal Abortion, 121 Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 114 (1975) (illegal abortion rate drops when legal abortion available). The minor may also seek to abort herself, Alice v. Department of Social Welfare, 55 Cal. App. 3d 1039, 1044, 128 Cal. Rptr. 374, 377 (1976); A. Holder, Legal Issues in Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 285 (1977); or even commit suicide, see Teicher, A Solution to the Chronic Problem of Living: Adolescent Attempted Suicide, in Current Issues in Adolescent Psychiatry 129, 136 (J. Schoolar ed. 1973) (study showing that approximately one-fourth of female minors who attempt suicide do so because they are or believe they are pregnant).

It is the presence of the notice requirement, and not merely its implementation in a particular case, that signifies the intrusion. Cf. Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 (1976) (availability of veto, not exercise of veto, found unconstitutional). Despite the Court’s objection today that we have in the past “expressly declined to equate notice requirements with consent requirements,” ante, at 411, n. 17, in Bellotti II the Court rejected a statute authorizing judicial review of a minor’s abortion decision — as an alternative to parental consent — precisely because a parent notified of the court action might interfere. Thus, Justice Powell wrote for four Members of the Court: “[A]s the District Court recognized, ‘there are parents who would obstruct, and perhaps altogether prevent, the minor’s right to go to court.’ . . . There is no reason to believe that this would be so in the majority of cases where consent is withheld. But many parents hold strong views on the subject of abortion, and young pregnant minors, especially those living at home, are particularly vulnerable to their parents’ efforts to obstruct both an abortion and their access to court.” 443 U. S., at 647.

Thus, the notice requirement produces not only predictable disincentives to choose to abort, Harris v. McRae, 448 U. S., at 338 (Marshall, J., dissenting); id., at 330 (Brenkan, J., dissenting); but also “ ‘direct state interference with a protected activity,’ ” id., at 315 (quoting with approval Maher v. Roe, 432 U. S. 464, 475 (1977)).

See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973) (invalidating procedural restrictions on availability of abortions); Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S., at 687-689 (partial restrictions on access to contraceptives subject to constitutional challenge). Regardless of the personal views each of us may hold, the privacy right by definition secures latitude of choice for the pregnant minor without state approval of one decision over another. Thus, Justice Stevens improperly inverts the reasoning of our decisions when he reiterates his previous view that the importance of the abortion decision points to a “ ‘State’s interest in maximizing the probability that the decision be made correctly and' with full understanding of the consequences of either alternative,’ ” ante, at 422 (emphasis added).

See text accompanying n. 8 and see nn. 20, 24, 25, supra.

Utah permits pregnant minors to consent to any medical procedure in connection with pregnancy and childbirth, but requires parental notice only before an abortion. Compare Utah Code Ann. § 78-14r-5 (4) (f) (1977) with §76-7-304 (2) (1978).

428 U. S., at 75. Cf. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S., at 388; NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438 (1963). In Roe v. Wade, this Court concluded that the woman’s privacy right may be tempered by “important [state] interests,” 410 U. S., at 154, but the Court ultimately applied the *442“compelling state interest” test commonly used in reviewing state burdens on fundamental rights. Id., at 155. Although it may seem that the minor’s privacy right is somehow less fundamental because it may be overcome by a “significant state interest,” the more sensible view is that state interests inapplicable to adults may justify burdening the minor’s right. Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, supra, at 74-75.

E. g., Roe v. Wade, supra, at 155; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S., at 485.

Appellees also argue that the notice requirement furthers legitimate state interests in enforcing Utah’s criminal laws against statutory rape, fornication, adultery, and incest. Brief for Appellees 28-30. These interests were not asserted below, and are too tenuous to be considered seriously here.

604 P. 2d, at 909-910.

Section 76-7-304 (1) requires the physician to “Consider all factors relevant to the well-being of the woman upon whom the abortion is to be performed including, but not limited to, “(a) Her physical, emotional and psychological health and safety, “(b) Her age, “(c) Her familial situation.” Violations of this requirement are punishable by a year’s imprisonment and $1,000 fine. Utah Code Ann. §§76-3-204 (1), 76-3-301 (3), 76-7-314 (3) (1978). Criminal sanctions also apply if the physician neglects to obtain the minor’s informed written consent, and such consent can be secured only after the physician has notified the patient: “(a) Of the names and addresses of two licensed adoption agencies in the state of Utah and the services that can be performed by those agencies, and nonagency adoption may be legally arranged; and “(b) Of the details of development of unborn children and abortion procedures, including any foreseeable complications, risks, and the nature of the post-operative recuperation period; and “(c) Of any other factors he deems relevant to a voluntary and informed consent.” Utah Code Ann. §76-7-305 (2) (1978). The risk of malpractice suits also ensures that the physician will acquire whatever information he finds necessary before performing the abortion. See Utah Code Ann. §78-14^5 (1977). Moreover, “[i]f a physician is licensed by the State, he is recognized by *444the State as capable of exercising acceptable clinical judgment. If he fails in this, professional censure and deprivation of his license are available remedies.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S., at 199.

The parties conceded as much at oral argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 18-19, 29, 48.

I am baffled by the majority’s statement today that “[i]f the pregnant girl elects to carry her child to term, the medical decisions to be made *445entail few — perhaps none — of the potentially grave and emotional and psychological consequences of the decision to abort,” ante, at 412-413. Choosing to participate in diagnostic tests involves risks to both mother and child, and also may burden the pregnant woman with knowledge that the child will be handicapped. See 3 National Institutes of Health, Prevention of Embryonic, Fetal, and Perinatal Disease 347-352 (R. Brent & M. Harris eds. 1976); Risks in the Practice of Modern Obstetrics 59-81, 369-370 (S. Aladjem ed. 1975). The decision to undergo surgery to save the child’s life certainly carries as serious “emotional and psychological consequences” for the pregnant adolescent as does the decision to abort; in both instances, the minor confronts the task of calculating not only medical risks, but also all the issues involved in giving birth to a child. See id., at 59-81. For an unwed adolescent, these issues include her future educational and job opportunities, as well as the more immediate problems of finding financial and emotional support for offspring dependent entirely on her. Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court, post, at 470, and nn. 3 and 4 (Rehnqtjist, J.) (plurality opinion). When surgery to save the child’s life poses greater risks to the mother’s life, the emotional and ethical dimensions of the medical care decision assume crisis proportion. Of course, for minors, the mere fact of pregnancy and the experience of childbirth can produce psychological upheaval.

More flexible regulations which defer to the physician’s judgment but provide for parental notice in emergencies have been proposed. E. g., IJA-ABA Standards for Juvenile Justice, Rights of Minors 4.2, 4.6, 4.8 (1980) (minor can consent to pregnancy-related medical care; physician should seek to obtain minor’s permission to notify parent, and notify parent over minor’s objection only if failure to inform “could seriously jeopardize the health of the minor”).

604 P. 2d, at 912 (“the State has a special interest in encouraging (but does not require) an unmarried pregnant minor to seek the advice of her parents in making the important decision as to whether or not to bear a child”).

Ibid, (notification statute “does not per se impose any restriction on the minor as to her decision to terminate her pregnancy”). Cf. Utah Code Ann. § 78-14 — 5 (4) (f) (1977) (woman of any age can consent to any medical care related to pregnancy). See generally Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S., at 74 (State may not delegate absolute veto authority to parents of pregnant minor seeking abortion).

State-sponsored counseling services, in contrast, could promote family dialogue and also improve the minor’s decisionmaking process. Appellant *447H. L., for example, consulted with a counselor who supported her decision. The role of counselors can be significant in facilitating the pregnant woman’s adjustment to decisions related to her pregnancy. See Smith, A Follow-Up Study of Women Who Request Abortion, 43 Am. J. Orthopsy-chiatry 574, 583-585 (1973).

This interest, although not discussed by the state courts below, was the subject of appellees’ most vigorous argument before this Court. The challenged provision does fall within the “Offenses Against the Family” chapter of the Utah Criminal Code, ante, at 400 (opinion of Burger, C. J.), which also provides criminal sanctions for bigamy, Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-101, incest, § 76-7-102, adultery, § 76-7-103, fornication, § 76-7-104, and nonsupport and sale of children, §§76-7-201 to 76-7-203 (1978).

Wynn v. Carey, 582 F. 2d, at 1385-1386; Note, The Minor’s Right of Privacy: Limitations on State Action after Danforth and Carey, 77 Colum. L. Rev. 1216, 1224 (1977).

“The fact that the minor became pregnant and sought an abortion contrary to the parents’ wishes indicates that whatever control the parent once had over the minor has diminished, if not evaporated entirely. And we believe that enforcing a single, albeit important, parental decision — at a time when the minor is near to majority status — by an instrument as blunt as a state statute is extremely unlikely to restore parental control.” Poe v. Gerstein, 517 F. 2d 787, 793-794 (CA5 1975), summarily aff’d, 428 U. S. 901 (1976).

Thus, in Prince v. Massachusetts, this Court held that even parental rights protected by the First Amendment could be limited by the State’s interest in prohibiting child labor. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 233-234 (1972) (discussing Prince). The State traditionally exercises a 'parens patriae function in protecting those who cannot take care of themselves. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, 641 (1968). Some of the earliest applications of parens patriae protected children against their "objectionable” parents. E. g., Wellesley v. Wellesley, 2 Bli. N. S. 124, 133-134, 4 Eng. Rep. 1078, 1082 (H. L. 1828). See generally Kleinfeld, The Balance of Power Among Infants, Their Parents and the State, Part III, 5 Family L. Q. 64, 66-71 (1971). Every State has enacted legislation to defend children from parental abuse. Wilcox, Child Abuse Laws: Past, Present, and Future, 21 J. Forensic Sciences 71, 72 (1976).

The contexts in which this issue may arise are too varied to support any general rule. Appellees cite our recent decision in Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584 (1979), to support their claim that parents should be presumed competent to be involved in their minor daughter’s abortion decision. That decision is inapposite to this case in several respects. First, the minor child in Parham who was committed to a mental hospital was presumed incompetent to make the commitment decision himself. Id., at 623 (Stewart, J., concurring in judgment). In contrast, appellant by statute is presumed competent to make the decision about whether to complete or abort her pregnancy. Furthermore, in Parham, the Court placed critical reliance on the ultimately determinative, independent review of the commitment decision by medical experts. Here, the physician’s independent medical judgment — that an abortion was in appellant’s best medical interest — not only was not ultimate, it was defeated by the notice requirement. Finally, as Justice Stewart emphasized in his opinion concurring in the judgment in Parham, the pregnant minor has a “personal substantive . . . right” to decide on an abortion. Id., at 623-624, n. 6.

Most States through their legislature or courts have adopted the common-law principle that a minor may become freed of the disabilities of that status — and at the same time release his parents from their parental obligations — prior to the actual date of his majority. Certain acts, in and of themselves, may occasion emancipation. See, e. g., Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 62 (West 1954 and Supp. 1981) (emancipation upon marriage or entry in Armed Services); Utah Code Ann. § 15-2-1 (Supp. 1979) (emancipation upon marriage); Crook v. Crook, 80 Ariz. 275, 296 P. 2d 951 (1956) (same). A minor may become partially emancipated if he is partially self-supporting, but still entitled to some parental assistance. See Katz, Schroeder, & Sidman, Emancipating Our Children — Coming of Legal Age in America, 7 Fam. L. Q. 211, 215 (1973). Several States by statute permit emancipation for a specific purpose, such as obtaining medical care without parental consent, e. g., Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 34.6 (West Supp. 1981); Mont. Code Ann. § 41-1-402 (1979) (woman of any age may consent to pregnancy-related medical care); Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-5 (4) (f) (1977) (same), § 26-6-39.1 (1976) (minor can consent to medical treatment for venereal disease); Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann., Art. 4447i (Vernon 1976) (person at least 13 years old may consent to medical *451treatment for drug dependency). See Pilpel, Minors’ Rights to Medical Care, 36 Albany L. Rev. 462 (1972). Several States provide for emancipation once the individual becomes a parent. E. g., Ky. Rev. Stat. § 214.-185 (2) (1977). In Utah, minors who become parents are authorized to make all medical care decisions for their offspring. Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-5 (4) (a) (1977). See generally Cohen v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 150 Misc. 450, 453-457, 269 N. Y. S. 667, 671-676 (1934); L. R. v. Hansen, No. C-80-0078J (Utah, Feb. 8, 1980) (self-supporting minor seeking abortion is emancipated and mature); Goldstein, Medical Care for the Child at Risk: On State Supervention of Parental Autonomy, 86 Yale L. J. 645, 663 (1977) (recommending objective criteria to avoid case-by-case determination of emanicipation).

The “mature minor” doctrine permits a child to consent to medical treatment if he is capable of appreciating its nature and consequences. E. g., L. R. v. Hansen, supra (this mature minor “is capable of understanding her condition and making an informed decision which she has done after carefully considering the alternatives available to her and consulting the persons with whom she felt she should consult” prior to abortion decision); Ark. Stat. Ann. §82-363 (g) (1976). See Lacey v. Laird, 166 Ohio St. 12, 139 N. E. 2d 25 (1956) (physician not liable for battery after acting with minor’s consent); Smith v. Seibly, 72 Wash. 2d 16, 21-22, 431 P. 2d 719, 723 (1967); Younts v. St. Francis Hosp. & School of Nursing, Inc., 205 Kan. 292, 300-301, 469 P. 2d 330, 337 (1970). Four Members of this Court embraced the “mature minor” concept in striking down a statute requiring parental notice and consent to a minor’s abortion, regardless of her own maturity. Bellotti II, 443 U. S., at 643-644, and nn. 22 and 23. In Bellotti II, Justice Powell’s opinion for four Members of this Court suggested that a statute could withstand constitutional attack if it permitted case-by-case administrative or judicial determination of a pregnant minor’s capacity to make an abortion decision with her physician and independent of her parents. Ibid. Because this view was expressed in a case not involving such a statute, and because it would expose the minor to the arduous and public rigors of administrative or judicial process, four other Members of this Court rejected it as advisory and at odds with the privacy interest at stake. Id., at 654^656, and n. 4 (SteveNS, J., joined by BreNNAN, Marshall, and Blackmun, JJ.). Nonetheless, even under Justice Powell’s reasoning in Bellotti II, the *452instant statute is unconstitutional. Not only does it preclude case-by-case consideration of the maturity of the minor, it also prevents individualized review to determine whether parental notice would be harmful to the minor.

E. g., Ky. Rev. Stat. § 214.185 (3) (1977); Utah Code Ann. § 26-31-8 (1976); 1979 Utah Laws, ch. 98, § 7. The need for emergency medical care may even overcome the religious objections of the parents. E. g., In re Clark, 21 Ohio Op. 2d 86, 89-90, 185 N. E. 2d 128, 131-132 (Com. PI., Lucas County 1962); In re Sampson, 65 Misc. 2d 658, 317 N. Y. S. 2d 641 (Family Ct.), aff’d, 37 App. Div. 2d 668, 323 N. Y. S. 2d 253 (1970); Mass. Gen. Laws. Ann., ch. 112, § 12F (West Supp. 1981); Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-7 (1972). Delay in treating nonemergency health needs may, of course, produce an emergency, and for that reason, this Court found statutory provision for emergency but not nonemergency care illogical. Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250, 261, 265 (1974). In asserting that the Utah statute would not apply to minors with emergency health care needs, the Court fails to point to anything in the statute, the record, or Utah case law to the contrary. The Supreme Court of Utah addressed only one kind of emergency: where the parents cannot be physically located in sufficient time to permit performance of the abortion. 604 P. 2d, at 913. The court rejected any other emergency situation as an exception to the statute when it declined to afford a broad interpretation of the phrase, "if possible,” which modifies the notice requirement. Even where the emergency is simply that the parents cannot be reached, the statute applies; the physician subject to its sanction merely has been granted an affirmative defense that he exercised “reasonable diligence” in attempting to locate and notify the parents. Ibid. The majority purports to draw support for its view of the Utah statute on this point from a Massachusetts statute, construed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, see ante, at 407, n. 14.

As one medical authority observed: “One can well argue that an adolescent old enough to make the decision to be sexually active . , . , and who is then responsible enough to seek professional assistance for his or her problem, is ipso facto mature enough to consent to his own health care.” Hofmann, supra n. 25, at 51. See Goldstein, 86 Yale L. J., at 633.

Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-5(4) (f) (1977).

Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-305 (1978) requires voluntary and informed written consent. See n. 36, supra.

Cf. Wynn v. Carey, 582 F. 2d, at 1388.