In a strong stand for parental rights and the rule of law, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the justices to overturn a controversial ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that struck down a common-sense law requiring parental involvement in a minor’s decision to get an abortion.
The law in question, the Parental Consent for Abortion Act of 2013, was passed by the Montana Legislature to ensure that parents are informed and provide consent before their underage daughters undergo an abortion. But in August, the Montana Supreme Court sided with pro-abortion interests and invalidated the law—sparking widespread concern among conservatives and parents’ rights advocates.
Governor Gianforte, in his brief, asserts that the ruling undermines the fundamental role of parents in the care and upbringing of their children.
“That parents should be afforded this right to direct the care and control of their children,” the governor wrote, arguing that parental rights must include a voice in serious medical decisions affecting their daughters.
He continued, “If the Court recognizes the rights of parents over the formal education of their children, then surely those rights extend even more so to parents’ rights to know and be involved in the medical decisions of their children.”
Gianforte also sharply criticized the Montana Supreme Court for what he called judicial overreach, accusing the justices of legislating from the bench and overriding the will of the people.
“With this decision, the activism of the Montana Supreme Court has now arrived at the Court’s doorstep, undermining the supremacy of the federal constitution and thereby the rule of law,” the governor warned.
He urged the U.S. Supreme Court to restore balance and uphold the rights of parents by reversing the lower court’s decision, calling the case a chance to set a national example in defense of the Constitution and the family unit.
“This Court has the opportunity through appellate review to correct the judicial activism of the court below and demonstrate to the nation through example as well as law the appropriate application of the federal constitution to the important issue of parental involvement in the medical decision making of their minor children.”
The case is expected to draw national attention as it addresses broader concerns about parental authority, state sovereignty, and the increasing role of courts in setting public policy.