with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Blackmun join, dissenting.
The decision of the Court is narrow. It finds shortcomings in appellant’s complaint and therefore denies relief. Thus, the Court sends out a clear signal that more carefully drafted pleadings could secure both a plaintiff’s standing to *426challenge the overbreadth of Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-304 (2) (1978), and success on the merits.1
Nonetheless, I dissent. I believe that even if the complaint is defective, the majority’s legal analysis is incorrect and it yields an improper disposition here. More important, I cannot agree with the majority’s view of the complaint, or its standing analysis. I therefore would reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah.
I
The Court finds appellant’s complaint defective because it fails to allege that she is mature or emancipated, and neglects to specify her reasons for wishing to avoid notifying her parents about her abortion decision. As a result, the Court rea*427sons, appellant lacks standing to challenge the overbreadth of the Utah parental notification statute.2
The majority’s standing analysis rests on prudential con*428cerns and not on the constitutional limitations set by Art. III. See Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 99-100 (1979); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498-499, 517-518 (1975). For the Court does not question that appellant’s injury due to the statute’s requirement falls within the legally protected ambit of her privacy interest, and that the relief requested would remedy the harm. See ante, at 407-409 (majority opinion); ante, at 418-419 (opinion of Powell, J.). The Court decides only that appellant cannot challenge the blanket nature of the statute because she neglected to allege that by her personal characteristics, she is a member of particular groups that undoubtedly deserve exemption from a parental notice requirement.3 Thus, the Court seems to apply the familiar prudential principle that an individual should not be heard to raise the rights of other persons. This principle, of course, has not precluded standing in other instances where, as here, the party has established the requisite and legally protected interest capable of *429redress through the relief requested.4 See, e. g., Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U. S. 59, 80-81 (1978); Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 113-118 (1976) (plurality opinion of Blackmun, J.); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179, 188-189 (1973); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 481 (1965); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 459-460 (1958); Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249, 259 (1953).
I do not believe that prudential considerations should bar standing here, for I am persuaded that appellant’s complaint establishes a claim that notifying her parents would not be in her best interests.5 She alleged that she “believes that it is in her best interest that her parents not be informed of her [pregnant] condition,” Complaint ¶ 6, App. 4, and that after consulting with her physician, attorney, and social worker, “she understands what is involved in her decision” to seek an abortion, Complaint ¶ 9, App. 4.6 This claim was further *430supported, albeit without detail, at the evidentiary hearing. There appellant testified she did not feel she could discuss the abortion decision with her parents even after she consulted a social worker on the issue. Tr. 8, App. 26.7 In my judgment, appellant has adequately asserted that she has persistently held reasons for believing parental notice would not be in her best interests. This provides a sufficient basis for standing to raise the challenge in her complaint. Appellant seeks to challenge a state statute, construed definitively by the highest court of that State to permit no exception to the notice requirement on the basis of any reasons offered by the minor. 604 P. 2d 907, 913 (Utah 1979). As standing is a jurisdictional issue, separate and distinct from the merits, a court need not evaluate the persuasiveness of her reasons for opposing parental notice to conclude that appellant has a concrete interest in determining whether the parental notice statute is valid.8
*431Yet even if the Court’s view of appellant’s complaint is correct, and even if prudence calls for denying her standing to raise the overbreadth claim, the Court erroneously concludes that the class represented by appellant suffers the identical standing disability. In so doing, the Court is apparently indifferent to the federalism or comity issues arising when this Court presumes to supervise the procedural determinations made by a state trial court under state law. Even if application of federal law governing class actions were appropriate in this case, the majority misapplies federal law by disturbing the class definition as approved by the trial court. The Court acknowledges, ante, at 401, 404 (Burger, C. J.); ante, at 417, n. 6 (Powell, J.), that the trial court granted appellant’s motion to represent a class, and it is undisputed that this class includes all “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, App. 5. This class by definition includes all minor women, self-supporting or dependent, sophisticated or naive, as long as the Utah statute interferes with the ability of these women to decide with their physicians to obtain abortions. If the Court is correct that appellant cannot raise challenges based on the interest of emancipated or mature minors, or others whose best interests call for avoiding parental notification, the proper disposition under federal law would be a remand. This remand would protect such class members by permitting the trial court to determine whether appellant is a proper and adequate class representative, and whether her claims are sufficiently similar to the class to warrant the class ac*432tion.9 Since the trial court enjoys considerable latitude in approving class actions, such a remand is appropriate only on those rare occasions where the reviewing court discerns an abuse of discretion.10 But where an abuse of discretion is clear from the record, remand should ensue, and could result in redefinition or dismissal of the class, addition of other named plaintiffs to represent interests appellant cannot advance, or creation of subclasses with additional representative parties.11 In contrast, it is improper to assume appel*433lant adequately represents the entire class as defined by the trial court, but redefine the class appellant is deemed to represent, and deny relief on that basis.12 Nonetheless, that is exactly the course selected by the majority today.
I instead assume that appellant adequately represents the class which the trial judge concluded she represents — all minor women seeking an abortion but finding the parental notice requirement an obstacle. I then would find that their rights and interests can be raised here by appellant in support of a facial challenge to the Utah statute, and conduct the appropriate review of appellant’s claims.
*434II
Because the Court’s treatment is so cursory, I review appellant’s claims with due attention to our precedents.
Our cases have established that a pregnant woman has a fundamental right to choose whether to obtain an abortion or carry the pregnancy to term. Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179 (1973).13 Her choice, like the deeply intimate decisions to marry,14 to procreate,15 and to use contraceptives,16 is guarded from unwarranted state intervention by the right to privacy:17 Grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to privacy18 protects both the woman’s “interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions” *435and her “individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 599-600 (1977).
In the abortion context, we have held that the right to privacy shields the woman from undue state intrusion in, and external scrutiny of, her very personal choice. Thus, in Roe v. Wade, supra, at 164, we held that during the first trimester of the pregnancy, the State’s interest in protecting maternal health or the potential life of the fetus could not override the right of the pregnant woman and the attending physician to make the abortion decision through private, unfettered consultation. We further emphasized the restricted scope of permissible state action in this area when, in Doe v. Bolton, supra, at 198-200, we struck down state-imposed procedural requirements that subjected the woman’s private decision with her physician to review by other physicians and a hospital committee.
It is also settled that the right to privacy, like many constitutional rights19 extends to minors. Planned Parenthood *436of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S. 52 (1976); Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U. S. 622, 639 (1979) (Bellotti II) (Powell, J.); id., at 653 (Stevens, J.); T. H. v. Jones, 425 F. Supp. 873, 881 (Utah 1975), summarily aff’d on other grounds, 425 U. S. 986 (1976). Indeed, because an unwanted pregnancy is probably more of a crisis for a minor than for an adult, as the abortion decision cannot be postponed until her majority, “there are few situations in which denying a minor the right to make an important decision will have consequences so grave and indelible.” Bellotti II, supra, at 646 (Powell, J.).20 Thus, for both the adult and the minor woman, state-imposed burdens on the abortion decision can be justified only upon a showing that the restrictions advance “important state interests.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S., at 154; accord, Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, supra, at 61. Before examining the state interests asserted here, it is necessary first to consider Utah’s claim that its statute does not “imping[e] on a woman’s decision to have an abortion” or “plac[e] obstacles in the path of effectuating such a decision.” Brief for Appellees 9. This requires an examination of whether the parental notice requirement of the Utah statute imposes any burden on the abortion decision.
The ideal of a supportive family so pervades our culture that it may seem incongruous to examine “burdens” imposed by a statute requiring parental notice of a minor daughter’s *437decision to terminate her pregnancy.21 This Court has long deferred to the bonds which join family members for mutual sustenance. See Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925); May v. Anderson, 345 U. S. 528, 533 (1953); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S., at 486; Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651 (1972); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 504-505 (1977) (plurality opinion of Powell, J.). Especially in times of adversity, the relationships within a family can offer the security of constant caring and aid. See id., at 505. Ideally, a minor facing an important decision will naturally seek advice and support from her parents, and they in turn will respond with comfort and wisdom.22 If the pregnant minor herself confides in her family, she plainly relinquishes her right to avoid telling or involving them. For a minor in that circumstance, the statutory requirement of parental notice hardly imposes a burden.
Realistically, however, many families do not conform to this ideal. Many minors, like appellant, oppose parental notice and seek instead to preserve the fundamental, personal right to privacy. It is for these minors that the parental notification requirement creates a problem. In this context, involving the minor’s parents against her wishes23 effectively cancels her right to avoid disclosure of her personal choice. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S., at 599-600. Moreover, the absolute notice requirement publicizes her private consulta*438tion with her doctor and interjects additional parties in the very conference held confidential in Roe v. Wade, supra, at 164. Besides revealing a confidential decision, the parental notice requirement may limit “access to the means of effectuating that decision.” Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678, 688 (1977). Many minor women will encounter interference from their parents after the state-imposed notification.24 In addition to parental disappoint*439ment and disapproval, the minor may confront physical or emotional abuse, withdrawal of financial support, or actual obstruction of the abortion decision. Furthermore, the threat of parental notice may cause some minor women to delay past the first trimester of pregnancy, after which the health risks increase significantly.25 Other pregnant minors may attempt to self-abort or to obtain an illegal abortion rather than risk parental notification.26 Still others may foresake *440an abortion and bear an unwanted child, which, given the minor’s “probable education, employment-skills, financial resources and emotional maturity, . . . may be exceptionally burdensome.” Bellotti II, 443 U. S., at 642 (Powell, J.). The possibility that such problems may not occur in particular cases does not alter the hardship created by the notice requirement on its face.27 And that hardship is not a mere disincentive created by the State,28 but is instead an actual *441state-imposed obstacle to the exercise of the minor woman’s free choice.29 For the class of pregnant minors represented by appellant, this obstacle is so onerous as to bar the desired abortions.30 Significantly, the interference sanctioned by the statute does not operate in a neutral fashion. No notice is required for other pregnancy-related medical care,31 so only the minor women who wish to abort encounter the burden imposed by the notification statute. Because the Utah requirement of mandatory parental notice unquestionably burdens the minor’s privacy right, the proper analysis turns next to the State’s proffered justifications for the infringements posed by the statute.
Ill
As established by this Court in Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, the statute cannot survive appellant’s challenge unless it is justified by a “significant state interest.” 32 Further, the State must demonstrate that the means *442it selected are closely tailored to serve that interest.33 Where regulations burden the rights of pregnant adults, we have held that the State legitimately may be concerned with “protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S., at 155. We concluded, however, that during the first trimester of pregnancy none of these interests sufficiently justifies state interference with the decision reached by the pregnant woman and her physician. Id., at 162-163. Nonetheless, appellees assert here that the parental notice requirement advances additional state interests not implicated by a pregnant adult’s decision to abort. Specifically, appellees contend that the notice requirement improves the physician’s medical judgment about a pregnant minor in two ways: it permits the parents to provide additional information to the physician, and it encourages consultation between the parents and the minor woman. Ap-pellees also advance an independent state interest in preserving parental rights and family autonomy. I consider each of these asserted interests in turn.34
A
In upholding the statute, the Utah Supreme Court concluded that the notification provision might encourage parental transmission of “additional information, which might *443prove invaluable to the physician in exercising his ‘best medical judgment.’ ”35 Yet neither the Utah courts nor the statute itself specifies the kind of information contemplated for this purpose, nor why it is available to the parents but not to the minor woman herself. Most parents lack the medical expertise necessary to supplement the physician’s medical judgment, and at best could provide facts about the patient’s medical history. It seems doubtful that a minor mature enough to become pregnant and to seek medical advice on her own initiative would be unable or unwilling to provide her physician with information crucial to the abortion decision. In addition, by law the physician already is obligated to obtain all information necessary to form his best medical judgment,36 and nothing bars consultation with the parents should the physician find it necessary.
*444Even if mandatory parental notice serves a substantial state purpose in this regard, the Utah statute fails to implement it. Simply put, the statute on its face does not require or even encourage the transfer of information; it does not even call for a conversation between the physician and the parents. A letter from the physician to the parents would satisfy the statute, as would a brief telephone call made moments before the abortion.37 Moreover, the statute is patently underinclusive if its aim is the transfer of information known to the parents but unavailable from the minor woman herself. The statute specifically excludes married minors from the parental notice requirement; only her husband need be told of the planned abortion, Utah Code Ann. § 76-7-304 (2) (1978), and Utah makes no claim that he possesses any information valuable to the physician’s judgment but unavailable from the pregnant woman. Furthermore, no notice is required for other pregnancy-related care sought by the minor. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-14-5 (4) (f) (1977) (authorizing woman of any age to consent to pregnancy-related medical care). The minor woman may consent to surgical removal and analysis of amniotic fluid, caesarian delivery, and other medical care related to pregnancy. The physician’s decisions concerning such procedures would be enhanced by parental information as much as would the abortion decision, yet only the abortion decision triggers the parental notice requirement. This result is especially anomalous given the comparatively lesser health risks associated with abortion as contrasted with other pregnancy-related medical care.38 Thus, the statute not only fails to promote *445the transfer of information as is claimed, it does not apply to other closely related contexts in which such exchange of information would be no less important. The goal of promoting consultation between the physician and the parents of the pregnant minor cannot sustain a statute that is so ill-fitted to serve it.39
B
Appellees also claim the statute serves the legitimate purpose of improving the minor’s decision by encouraging consultation between the minor woman and her parents. Ap-pellees do not dispute that the State cannot legally or *446practically require such consultation.40 Nor do appellees contest the fact that the decision is ultimately the minor’s to make.41 Nonetheless, the State seeks through the notice requirement to give parents the opportunity to contribute to the minor woman’s abortion decision.
Ideally, facilitation of supportive conversation would assist the pregnant minor during an undoubtedly difficult experience. Again, however, when measured against the rationality of the means employed, the Utah statute simply fails to advance this asserted goal. The statute imposes no requirement that the notice be sufficiently timely to permit any discussion between the pregnant minor and the parents. Moreover, appellant’s claims require us to examine the statute’s purpose in relation to the parents who the minor believes are likely to respond with hostility or opposition. In this light, the statute is plainly overbroad. Parental consultation hardly seems a legitimate state purpose where the minor’s pregnancy resulted from incest, where a hostile or abusive parental response is assured, or where the minor’s fears of such a response deter her from the abortion she desires. The absolute nature of the statutory requirement, with exception permitted only if the parents are physically unavailable, violates the requirement that regulations in this fundamentally personal area be carefully tailored to serve a significant state interest.42 “The need to preserve the consti*447tutional right and the unique nature of the abortion decision, especially when made by a minor, require a State to act with particular sensitivity when it legislates to foster parental involvement in this matter.” Bellotti II, 443 U. S., at 642 (Powell, J.). Because Utah’s absolute notice requirement demonstrates no such sensitivity, I cannot approve its interference with the minor’s private consultation with the physician during the first trimester of her pregnancy.
C
Finally, appellees assert a state interest in protecting parental authority and family integrity.43 This Court, of course, has recognized that the “primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205, 232 (1972). See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158 (1944); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390 (1923). Indeed, “those who nurture [the child] and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S., at 535. Similarly, our decisions “have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 166. See also Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S., at 505.
*448The critical thrust of these decisions has been to protect the privacy of individual families from unwarranted state intrusion.44 Ironically, appellees invoke these decisions in seeking to justify state interference in the normal functioning of the family. Through its notice requirement, the State in fact enters the private realm of the family rather than leaving unaltered the pattern of interactions chosen by the family. Whatever its motive, state intervention is hardly likely to resurrect parental authority that the parents themselves are unable to preserve.45 In rejecting a statute permitting parental veto of the minor woman’s abortion decision in Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S., at 75, we found it difficult to conclude that
“providing a parent with absolute power to overrule a determination, made by the physician and his minor patient, to terminate the patient’s pregnancy will serve to strengthen the family unit. Neither is it likely that such veto power will enhance parental authority or control where the minor and the nonconsenting parent are so fundamentally in conflict and the very existence of the pregnancy already has fractured the family structure.”
More recently, in Bellotti II, supra, at 638, Justice Powell observed that efforts to guide the social and moral development of young people are “in large part. . . beyond the competence of impersonal political institutions.”
*449Appellees maintain, however, that Utah’s statute “merely safeguards a reserved right which parents have to know of the important activities of 'their children by attempting to prevent a denial of the parental rights through deception.” Brief for Appellees 3. Casting its purpose this way does not salvage the statute. For when the threat to parental authority originates not from the State but from the minor child, invocation of “reserved” rights of parents cannot sustain blanket state intrusion into family life such as that mandated by the Utah statute. Such a result not only runs counter to the private domain of the family which the State may not breach; it also conflicts with the limits traditionally placed on parental authority. Parental authority is never absolute, and has been denied legal protection when its exercise threatens the health or safety of the minor children. E. g., Prince v. Massachusetts, supra, at 169-170. Indeed, legal protection for parental rights is frequently tempered if not replaced by concern for the child’s interest.46 Whatever its importance elsewhere, parental authority deserves de minimis legal reinforcement where the minor’s exercise of a fundamental right is burdened.
To decide this case, there is no need to determine whether parental rights never deserve legal protection when their as*450sertion conflicts with the minor’s rights and interests.47 I conclude that this statute cannot be defended as a mere reinforcement of existing parental rights, for the statute reaches beyond the legal limits of those rights. The statute applies, without exception, to emancipated minors,48 mature mi*451nors,49 and minors with emergency health care needs,50 all of whom, as Utah recognizes, by law have long been entitled to medical care unencumbered by parental involvement. Most *452relevant to appellant’s own claim, the statutory restriction applies even where the minor’s best interests — as evaluated by her physician — call for an abortion. The Utah trial court found as a fact that appellant’s physician “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 *453her without complying with the provisions of the statute even though he believed it was best to do so.” Civ. No. C-78-2719 (Dec. 26, 1978) (Findings of Fact ¶7). Even if further review by adults other than her physician, counselor, and attorney were necessary to assess the minor’s best interests, see Bellotti II, 443 U. S., at 640-641, 643-644 (opinion of Powell, J.), Utah’s rejection of any exception to the notice requirement for a pregnant minor is plainly overbroad. In Bellotti II, we were unwilling to cut a pregnant minor off from any avenue to obtain help beyond her parents, and yet the Utah statute does just that.
In this area, I believe this Court must join the state courts and legislatures which have acknowledged the undoubted social reality: some minors, in some circumstances, have the capacity and need to determine their health care needs without involving their parents. As we recognized in Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U. S., at 75, “[a]ny independent interest the parent may have in the termination of the minor daughter’s pregnancy is no more weighty than the right of privacy of the competent minor mature enough to have become pregnant.”51 Utah itself has allocated pregnancy-related health care decisions entirely to the pregnant minor.52 Where the physician has cause to doubt the minor’s actual ability to understand and consent, by law he must pursue the requisites of the State’s informed consent procedures.53 The State cannot have a legitimate interest in adding to this scheme mandatory parental notice of the minor’s abortion decision. This conclusion does not *454affect parents’ traditional responsibility to guide their children’s development, especially in personal and moral concerns. I am persuaded that the Utah notice requirement is not necessary to assure parents this traditional child-rearing role, and that it burdens the minor’s fundamental right to choose with her physician whether to terminate her pregnancy.54
IV
In its eagerness to avoid the clear application of our precedents, the Court today relies on a mistaken view of class-action law and prudential standing requirements. The Court’s avoidance of the issue presented by the complaint nonetheless leaves our precedents intact. Under those precedents, I have no doubt that the challenged statute infringes upon the constitutional right to privacy attached to a minor woman’s decision to complete or terminate her pregnancy. None of the reasons offered by the State justifies this intrusion, for the statute is not tailored to serve them. Rather than serving to enhance the physician’s judgment, in cases such as appellant’s the statute prevents implementation of the physician’s medical recommendation. Rather than promoting the transfer of information held by parents to the minor’s physician, the statute neglects to require anything more than a communication from the physician moments before the abortion. Rather than respecting the private realm of family life, the statute invokes the criminal justice machinery of the State in an attempt to influence the interactions within the family. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah insofar as it upheld the statute against constitutional attack.
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 *428State, 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.