Skip to comments.Court Taking Up Abortion Notification (Supreme Court Takes Abortion Case)
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.
Good point ... and if the judge agrees, he's facilitating the continuing abuse of a minor.
What an idiotic argument. If my daughter's health is in jeopardy, I certainly want to know about it!
The court had the luxury of knowing that Nixon wasn't going to be doing ANYTHING in 1973 that would anger the court or Congress.
Impecable timing for the SC to decide to take up this issue.... in light of the current near-nuke discussion taking place in the Senate. Nothing in politics happens by coincidence.... :)
OK, I'll get my son to impregnate your daughter and then I'll advise the both of them to kill the baby in utero (say...in the third tri-mester)....just remember it's none of your business because abortion is legal.
You say in the main so I guess well disagree about when a person reaches adulthood.
Legally of course you need to be 21 to drink and 18 to vote.
However Id say that adulthood is when you can hurtle down the road in a big truck. They better be adult enough to handle that.
If the parents were so protective of their children in the first place maybe they should have bought them some protection and encouraged its use.
Im not so much a proponent of abortion as a proponent of someone making a choice. Theyll have to live with that choice. There is a difference between the two.
You think it's crazy now, wait until Rehnquist retires in the middle of all this. And if something were to happen with either Stevens or O'Conner you can expect the senate to come to a standstill.
Under 18...somebody's pregnant? Get the District Attorney on the case....that's a possible case of statutory rape..(depending on the state ((some are 16)). Time to start prosecuting for statutory rape. If the boy is 16 or under...prosecute the girl as well.
Yep.... they have taken this case at this time on purpose. Paging SNOW, WARNER, SPECTER, MCCAIN.....
I think abortion should be a choice left to that individual.
But, as many conservatives have told me, the problem with my thinking is that it can be "too much freedom."
Re#27 Absolutely, along with labels and lies. "Conservative" and "Right Wing" activist groups vs. "Public Interest", "Nonpartisan" and "Consumer Advocacy" groups. There is not enough time in the day to keep up with it all...
In this case it should be left to the kids parents.
For many the real problem with abortion starts when the government using our tax dollars decides to start paying for abortions. Then it is no longer an individuals choice. When tax dollars are spent it is rightfully so that tax payers have part of the decision process.
I don't know if that's true in the majority of cases, though I'm not a sociologist. I also agree that threats of violence don't necessarily happen in the majority of cases either. But I'd bet what does happen in a large percentage of cases is that the "boyfriend" (if you can really call him that) puts tremendous pressure on the girl however he can. And thanks to these laws taking away the parental influence, his influence is the only one she has.
I guess well have to agree to disagree. If you can manage a car on our highways when you are 16 then to me you can manage your own body, but see above, Im all about too much freedom according to some.
Free to murder, that is admirable. Short and fits on a bumper sticker. This isn't about freedom and you know it.
This is the battle the left has been waging by proxy for 20+ years. If they can get the USSC to rule that a minor doesn't need consent to have an abortion, then the slippery slope begins for all actions towards minors - statutory rape charges will be null and void because of it as well.
Either you forgot your sarcasm tags or you aren't a parent.
I'm all for choice!
Let the baby, with her unique DNA, decide whether or not she wishes to be aborted.