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...