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.
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.
This is not a laughing matter.
I am writing expressly about abortions performed by so-called "medical professionals". These poor girls go into clinics for, in some cases, what they believe will be counselling and guidance, and wind up being rushed into an abortion before they know what hit them.
There is no follow-up with these "doctors". They collect their money and they have no further contact with the patient.
Grellis asked you if you are a parent and I don't recall your answer. I take it you are not, for you do not sound like one.
It's not that you're all about freedom. Even the 16 year old driver is under the supervision of parents.
But if this is really about choice and freedom... then let's give the guys the choice and freedom to be part of the decision. Or the choice and freedom to decide if they are financially liable or not for the next 18 years. And let's extend this choice until the baby is ... say age 2. By the time it's 2 then a real determination can be made if the thing is dumb, or smart, good looking or not.... or if the mother is really going to like being a mom or not. Or if the dad is really going to want to care for the kid.
You're not really about choice or freedom. You're about women killing their own babies. That's your bottom line. And unfortunately our government uses mine and your tax dollars everyday in this process. And if I'm going to pay for it... then the choice is part mine too.
I'd like to have the age at 18, but would settle for 17, for this particular question.
Not really Im more about choice and personal responsablity.
Your point about a 16 year old being under adult supervision I dont understand. If they are driving in their car alone are their parents still responsable for their actions or should the kid be?
We could say the same thing about any item in the budget. The USS Sequoia being in the budget was okay with you then? A yacht that was sold off in the 70s but just got bought again?
My ideal as a libertarian is to give people the rights to choose whatever they want to. I dont think you should make a decision for others but you seem to want to. To me a clump of cells isnt a human life.
If your going to go all balistic about this abortion stuff then why dont you tell me how you feel about Sun Hudson. Heres a living baby that was killed!
Its hypocracy to say Im about killing babies in the womb (they arent even babies IMO) when laws are now in place to kill off living babies and you dont even mention that.
Yeah its a tough one.
Im curious if you think alcohol should be 21 or if across the board it should be a certain age.
Then where did you come from, FRiend?
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.