Hodgson v. Minnesota

The most passionate voices of dissent in the case were those most closely identified with, and those most profoundly skeptical of, the concept of constitutionally protected abortion rights. On the one hand, Justices Marshall, Brennan, and Blackmun took the view that any requirement that a minor notify parents before terminating a pregnancy was unconstitutional on its face. Writing for the dissenters, Justice Marshall opined:

The parental notification and 48-hour delay requirements . . . do not satisfy the strict scrutiny applicable to laws restricting a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion. The judicial bypass procedure cannot salvage those requirements because that procedure itself is unconstitutional.

On the other hand, Justice Scalia was equally adamant that the Court had no right to be ruling on such matters in the first place.

The random and unpredictable results of our . . . unchanneled individual views make it increasingly evident, term after term, that the tools for this job are not to be found in the lawyer's--and hence not in the judge's--workbox. I continue to dissent from this enterprise of devising an Abortion Code, and from the illusion that we have authority to do so.