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.
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.
Totally amazing minors can't get a tooth extracted but can legally get an unwanted human being extracted without parental permission.
Oh, that makes it different. If the child has a serious health problem, by NO means should one inform her parents about it.
(now where was that link to the article about "sarcasm"?)
Isn't the real issue here rape or incest? Is that what 'health problems' is a euphemism for?
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...
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.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
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.
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....
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."
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.
You sir or madam, are a freakin' idiot.
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."
Nice catch. Subtle in their deception, aren't they...
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.
sure It is. Abortion is about the favorite liberal freedom of all. It is the freedom to be completely irresponsible.
The right time to choose is when the panties are still in place.
Care to weigh in on Sun Hudson?
Looks to me like your the one advocating murder.
Youd be someone who said a stillborn child was alive I guess then.
Before you start throwing flames you might want to do some research on just how many kids starve to death every year.
But its oh so much easier to blame the libertarian, isnt it?
The parents are liable for all medical and psychiatric care that the girl will need afterward. They'll also be responsible to get her to a doctor once they realize how much she's bleeding (perhaps to death). You'd better believe it IS their business.
How do you know that?
Have you any idea how many women cannot have children after they've had abortions because their bodies are damaged beyond repair?
Abortion is just what the term implies: it is an aborting of the natural order of things. After conception, gestation and birth are to follow. If the body cannot sustain the pregnancy due to physical abnormalities, it will eject the fetus on its own (miscarriage).
That's a curious position. Contracts are legal, but minors can't enter into them. When I go away from home, leaving my minor child in the care of his older siblings who are legal adults, I need to leave legal release authorizing his older siblings to seek medical care, otherwise, except for life-threatening circumstances, physicians are forbidden to treat him under existing laws.
The argument for the invalidation of anti-abortion laws was based on some notion (speciouly drawn from the Constitution by a kind of mystical 'reasoning') that the state ought not intrude on the privacy of citizens to enforce uniform judgements about such matters as when life begins. Giving the judgment of those matters to parents in the case of minors is in accord with a great deal of statutory and case law, and (unfortunately) contrary to the howls from the left would not really do anything to 'overturn' Roe.
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.