Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court Taking Up Abortion Notification (Supreme Court Takes Abortion Case)
MyWayNews ^ | May 23, 2005 | HOPE YEN

Posted on 05/23/2005 8:50:09 AM PDT by Asphalt

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court, re-entering the politically charged abortion debate, agreed Monday to hear a state appeal seeking to reinstate a law requiring parental notification before minors can terminate their pregnancies.

Justices will review a lower court ruling that struck down New Hampshire's parental notification law. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the 2003 law was unconstitutional because it didn't provide an exception to protect the minor's health in the event of a medical emergency.

The decision to review the emotional case, which came amid wide speculation that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's retirement is looming, will be heard in the next term beginning in October. Liberal groups have vowed to fight any Rehnquist replacement who opposes the high court's landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

In their appeal, New Hampshire officials argued that the abortion law need not have an "explicit health exception" because other state provisions call for exceptions when the mother's health is at risk. They also asked justices to clarify the legal standard that is applied when reviewing the constitutionality of abortion laws.

The New Hampshire law required that a parent or guardian be notified if an abortion was to be done on a woman under 18. The notification had to be made in person or by certified mail 48 hours before the pregnancy was terminated.

In its last major abortion decision in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that state abortion laws must provide an exception to protect the mother's health. Justices at the time reasoned that a Nebraska law, which banned so-called "partial-birth" abortions, placed an "undue burden" on women's abortion rights.

Since then, several lower courts have applied that health exception to abortion laws requiring parental notification. The New Hampshire case challenged whether the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling actually required that.

Abortion laws are "entirely different than parental involvement laws, which obviously do not purport to ban abortions, but simply seek to promote the interests of minors in having the benefit of parental involvement," New Hampshire legislators wrote in a friend-of-the-court filing.

Earlier this year, justices declined to hear a challenge to the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling by the woman known as "Jane Roe" who was at the center of the historic case.

It also declined to consider reinstating an Idaho law requiring girls under age 18 to get parental consent for abortions except under the most dire of medical emergencies.

The latest case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; judiciary; parentalnotification; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last

1 posted on 05/23/2005 8:50:11 AM PDT by Asphalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Asphalt
This could be it. This might be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

If the USSC says that a minor can get an abortion without parental notification, all Hell's gonna break loose.

God help us all if they fark this up.

2 posted on 05/23/2005 8:55:28 AM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asphalt

Totally amazing minors can't get a tooth extracted but can legally get an unwanted human being extracted without parental permission.


3 posted on 05/23/2005 8:56:13 AM PDT by mtbopfuyn (Legality does not dictate morality... Lavin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asphalt
because it didn't provide an exception to protect the minor's health in the event of a medical emergency.

Oh, that makes it different. If the child has a serious health problem, by NO means should one inform her parents about it.

TS
(now where was that link to the article about "sarcasm"?)

4 posted on 05/23/2005 9:02:56 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asphalt

Isn't the real issue here rape or incest? Is that what 'health problems' is a euphemism for?


5 posted on 05/23/2005 9:04:02 AM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Asphalt

Let's see. This court has held one under 18 cannot get the death penalty for anything because of his or her youth. I wonder if age will matter in this case. Should be interesting. If Rehnquist steps down before this one is heard, look for the Mother of All Appointment Battles...


7 posted on 05/23/2005 9:05:58 AM PDT by eureka! (It will not be safe to vote Democrat for a long, long, time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asphalt

In the main, parents are protectors of their children. Often girls (and I use the term advisedly, but we are talking about minor females here) are brought in for abortions by their adult boyfriends. This is often a part of the continuing pattern of subjugation and manipulation of young girls by older men. It would seem to me that a requirment of parental notification would get the parents, who are naturally protective of their children, involved in a matter where their protection is sorely needed.

Of course there need to be protections and judicial over-ride in cases where the parents are themselves abusive or, worse yet, have fathered the child through incest. But, generally speaking and absent abuse, it is better when parents are involved in the decisions of their children.

I don't see how proponents of abortion can fail to see this point.


8 posted on 05/23/2005 9:09:32 AM PDT by gridlock (ELIMINATE PERVERSE INCENTIVES)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Asphalt
Odds are good the SCOTUS will require a "health" exception to be added to parental notification laws along with a required judicial by-pass procedure. No, the Court is not going to use this case as a vehicle to overturn Roe. Rather, its going to decide what kind of limits on abortion at the margins are constitutionally acceptable.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
9 posted on 05/23/2005 9:11:24 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Borges
Is that what 'health problems' is a euphemism for?

Abortion will never be banned in cases where the woman has health problems or "her life is in danger."

Therefore, "if I have this baby I will go into major depression."

"If I have this baby I will kill myself." Just say those magic words and no matter what the restrictions are they will have to perform the abortion.

10 posted on 05/23/2005 9:14:17 AM PDT by jsbankston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tarheel1

I agree with you, for me it goes back to the old Hank Williams song.

"Mind your own business and you wont be mindin mine."

How about if parents take some responsability to teach their kids about birth control....


11 posted on 05/23/2005 9:19:40 AM PDT by yama426 (91 octane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Borges

No, "health" is a euphemism for "Pregnancy is a drag, and having a baby would interfere with my social life (education, career, vacation), and I didn't even like the guy."


13 posted on 05/23/2005 9:20:43 AM PDT by Tax-chick (I'm a shallow, demagoguic sectarian because it's easier than working for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: clee1

Hell should have broken loose in 1973, but it didn't. When the courts figured they could get away with murder of babies they knew there was no limits.

Frankly I do not think they would have taken the risk if they did not know the Nixon administration, yes NIXON was not going to do more than make a public but token objection (just for show) and the Congress would not impeach. Sorry folks but I just don't see them doing it without some assurances there.


15 posted on 05/23/2005 9:23:10 AM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tarheel1

You sir or madam, are a freakin' idiot.


16 posted on 05/23/2005 9:26:24 AM PDT by clee1 (We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: yama426
Re: "How about if parents take some responsability to teach their kids about birth control...."

Incorrect. What do you think abortion is?
Birth control as plan "A" and plan "B"
17 posted on 05/23/2005 9:26:30 AM PDT by Mark in the Old South (Sister Lucia of Fatima pray for us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
This court has held one under 18 cannot get the death penalty for anything because of his or her youth.

Yes, that's because a girl under 18 is called just that: a girl. But of course, that's only when the issue is something other than abortion. As the honest, objective AP article above states:

"The New Hampshire law required that a parent or guardian be notified if an abortion was to be done on a woman under 18."

18 posted on 05/23/2005 9:29:33 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Nice catch. Subtle in their deception, aren't they...


19 posted on 05/23/2005 9:32:26 AM PDT by eureka! (It will not be safe to vote Democrat for a long, long, time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
It can also be a euphemism for "My boyfriend's going to beat the crap out of me if I don't get that abortion." Not that she'd ever give that reason to a judge, of course.
20 posted on 05/23/2005 9:33:36 AM PDT by inquest (FTAA delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-111 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson