Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joined 19 of his peers Wednesday, May 5, asking the Supreme Court to reverse a federal court decision that struck down a law requiring that any minor who chooses to have an abortion needs parental consent, LifeNews.com reported.

The case began in the state of Indiana when the American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, filed a federal lawsuit in May 2017 to prevent the parental consent requirement from going into effect, claiming it violated due process and First Amendment rights.

The judge granted Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit in June 2017 and vacated the requirement.

After the Indiana attorney general appealed the decision, in January 2018, the Seventh Circuit Federal Court in Chicago upheld the initial verdict allowing minors to undergo the dangerous abortion procedure without their parents’ knowledge.

As a result, now the attorneys general of 20 states joined Indiana’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

While Indiana law requires that minors must obtain parental consent before having an abortion, a minor can petition a judge for a “judicial bypass,” arguing that the girl is mature enough to make the decision or deem it in her best interest.

Although only 4% of Indiana girls have abortions without parental consent—a high percentage of them are in foster homes. If it were to be reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, the override of parental consent would result in a perilous situation where teenage girls could easily be convinced by organizations that profit from abortion, such as Planned Parenthood.

“The Seventh Circuit has left intact an injunction against an Indiana statute requiring that the parents of an unemancipated minor receive notice when their child decides to have an abortion without parental consent,” Dr. Paxton wrote to the Supreme Court. “And the court did so without really considering the compelling interest that States have in encouraging parental involvement in these kinds of life-altering decisions. In other words, the court disregarded the important interest that States have in protecting minors’ welfare—an interest that this Court has repeatedly affirmed.”

The Texas attorney general argues that the state has greater ability than the courts to regulate abortions on minors because of the experience of doing so with adults.

“The amici States seek to protect the most vulnerable members of society—children—as they face consequential decisions like whether to have an abortion,” Paxton said.

He added, “The Supreme Court now has a chance to restore parental liberty and the wellbeing of minors while giving parents room to teach and guide their children.”

Some liberal media outlets highlight that the requirement applies only to girls who do not have parents, but considering that abortionist Planned Parenthood is behind striking down the measure, it is clear that they are going after all minors who become pregnant prematurely. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision is of utmost importance to establish a judicial precedent that rejects this type of excess.