Conservatorship of Valerie N.
California Supreme Court
1DissentBird, C. J.
I respectfully dissent.
Today’s holding will permit the state, through the legal fiction of substituted consent, to deprive many women permanently of the right to conceive and bear children. The majority run roughshod over this fundamental constitutional right in a misguided attempt to guarantee a right of procreative *175choice for one they assume has never been capable of choice and never will be. Yet precisely because choice and consent are meaningless concepts when applied to such a person, the majority’s invocation of the theory of procreative choice and the fiction of substituted consent…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Stump v. SparkmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.