Posted on 03/28/2005 10:21:08 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday to reinstate a state law requiring girls under age 18 to get parental consent for abortions except under the most dire of medical emergencies.
Without comment, justices let stand a lower court ruling that struck down the Idaho law because its provisions on emergency abortions were too strict.
The Supreme Court in its landmark 1973 case, Roe v. Wade, ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to abortion before the fetus is viable and to terminate her pregnancy if it poses a risk to her health.
At issue was whether the Idaho law was unduly burdensome on young mothers by limiting abortions without consent to "sudden and unexpected" instances of physical complications.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said yes, saying there was no reasonable explanation for the restriction. Other emergency medical procedures are allowed on minors without parental permission that do not fit the "sudden and unexpected" category, it said.
The court said the rest of the law could not be salvaged because the emergency provisions were too important.
The justices' move Monday sidesteps a highly charged issue amid continuing speculation about a looming vacancy on the high court. At least three justices have said they believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and liberal groups have vowed to fight any judicial nominee that opposes the landmark ruling.
The last major abortion decision by the Supreme Court came in 2000, when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortion because it failed to provide an exception to protect the mother's health.
The Idaho law had been challenged by Planned Parenthood of Idaho and one of the four Idaho doctors who performs abortions.
Other states also provide for parental consent for abortions in many situations, but Idaho's is considered more stringent than most.
In 2001, there were 738 abortions performed in the state, a drop from 1980, when 2,553 were performed, according to state statistics.
The case is Wasden v. Planned Parenthood of Idaho, 04-703.
All bow to our Masters in Black Robes.
Unfreaking real...wow.
Idaho should pass a law requiring minors who want an abortion to first get a tattoo. Then the parents will be notified in a manner that will stand up to scrutiny by our nitwit courts.
Can't be bothered with underage consent when you're in a hurry to murder an unborn child.
piss on them.
But try to give a teenage girl an asprin in there will be hell to pay...
piss on them.
"The Supreme Court in its landmark 1973 case, Roe v. Wade, ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to abortion before the fetus is viable and to terminate her pregnancy if it poses a risk to her health."
Then how did we get to the "abortion on demand" culture we have today? If that's all they ruled on, then how did we get from there to here? Did it go back to the States after Roe v. Wade for them to decide at that level?
bttt
I know. What are we going to do about this? When will one of them die (by natural causes, not thirst) or retire so we can appoint someone new?
Ok so they said it was too restrictive. The law needs to be rewritten. They did not say such a law can not exist. They just nitpicked this one.
Other state parental notification laws exist. Those should be copied.
Also, remember this at democrat party filibuster time.
lol
9th U.S. Circuit Court
Nothing else need be said. The Congress should remove this Circuit Court from existence immediately.
Judgments come with free condoms.
My eleven year old daughter heard some of Rush last week about the "nine black robes" on the way to the dentist.
She made the comment that the "nine black robes" made her think of the Nazgul. And later she made comparisons to how they were corrupted with power, too!
I thought that was pretty observant for her age.
Dear Diana in Wisconsin,
Actually, Roe by itself proposed that restrictions could be put in place in the second trimester by the states, and could be essentially banned in the third trimester.
Except for the exception for a woman's health.
Defined by the companion case, Doe v. Bolton, a "woman's health" is anything the woman decides harms her in any way, shape or form.
So, yes, abortion is restricted. Except in any cases where a woman wants an abortion.
sitetest
Dear TruthConquers,
Your daughter has made an excellent analogy.
Think what the Nazgul were - corrupted, once-great kings of men, men who sought power to do what is good and great, but who sought power without limit or humility.
I think the Nazgul perfectly defines our Masters in Black Robes.
Thanks to your daughter for the analogy.
sitetest
And the culture of death marches on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.