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.
I assume you are being sarcastic. 8^>
I assume you are being sarcastic. 8^>
You dont know him but you can know of him. Surely you arent saying that we should kill LIVING babies!
Thats what happened not too long ago. Sun Hudson. Read up professor.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=sun+hudson
http://www.nbc5.com/health/4286333/detail.html??z=dp&dpswid=1167317&dppid=65194
Yeah you should have a hard time taking me seriously, your completely dismissing fact.
Kids are starving right now, this instant and it isnt because some fat kid stole their lunch money.
I suspected as much, and thus only criticized your legal reasoning about the application of the 'right' to minors, and included the parenthetical 'unfortuantely'.
Yes, it is best left to the states, as it was before Roe. I say that even though I would very much like to limit abortions to 'triage' abortions, in which the child must be sacrificed to save the life of the mother (I might be content to grant an exception for rape and incest--though as an Orthodox Christian, I believe that abortion is homocide, and thus in almost all circumstances murder, I am not certain that the state has a place forcing women to bear the podvig (a term in our tradition for a spiritual burden) of carrying to term a child engendered by rape or incest).
So you can bring the tax dollars in the mix but I cant mention how were killing living kids like Sun Hudson?
Ok since were on the tax dollar subject lets talke about the 15 billion in pork that got shoved through.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-21-budget-bill-extras_x.htm
$75,000 for renovating the Merry Go Round Playhouse in Auburn, N.Y.
$100,000 for a weather museum in Punxsutawney, Pa.
$800,000 for "soybean rust research" in Ames, Iowa.
$75,000 for "hides and leather research" in Wyndmoor, Pa.
$1,593 for potato storage in Madison, Wis.
$1 million for a world birding center, Texas.
$150,000 to pay for beaver management and damage in Wisconsin.
$200,000 for the American Cotton Museum in Greenville, Texas.
$100,000 for a swimming pool in Ottawa, Kan.
$70,000 for a "Paper Industry International Hall of Fame" in Appleton, Wis.
$1.5 million for the Rep. Richard Gephardt Archive at the Missouri Historical Society.
Those are some of the pork projects going on right now...which one is your favorite? I like the Paper Industrys Hall of Fame the best (sarcasm).
I came from Mom and Dad. I was part of him, then her but not the actual individual me until I was out of the womb, umbilical cut.
I also come from Nevada but thats a different story.
Whered you come from?
I'm bringing the tax issue into the debate as it pertains to abortion. You're chasing a red herring. We all agree that government spends to much money on junk. Do you also agree that abortion should not be federally funded? Or do you favor government funding abortions? That's a pretty simple straight forward question regarding abortion, which is the topic of this thread.
...or a human.
Which individual?
Cordially,
Fair question I think the person should pay for it on their own. Of course wheres a teenage kid going to get cash for an abortion? Parents probably. So maybe theyll have to do what you want anyways and talk to the parents about it.
I could go on and on about situations I see right now. Messed up kids living with grandma and grandpa, who arent thrilled because their kids were irresponsable with birth control then ditched the babies.
I think its crazy that I get flamed for suggesting that parents should take some responsability earlier and teach their kids about sex. If you made sex illegal what would happen? Its like some people have the same logic as prohibition. Make it illegal and it will never happen. Right....
What I dont understand is how people can say Im into baby killing and have no explanation for Sun Hudson or cases Ive seen like kids with spinal bifeda where there is so much pain that I think they would have been better off aborted. But notice I NEVER say that I am the ONE to make that DECISION for them. All in all Id rather be more on the side of freedom for people to choose whether to bring a kid into a horrible situation healthwise or a abusive home. Or even a perfect situation but maybe the parents want to be more secure and mature.
Sun Hudson, since some people wont even click a link was
"A critically ill 5-month-old baby who Texas Children's Hospital says cannot be saved was to be taken off life support after a judge's ruling lifted an injunction that had prevented doctors from halting care they believe is futile."
How did your life begin?
Cordially,
The individual who is carrying the baby.
Do you think you should make that choice for them?
I think youd say a miracle of God or something.
If you want to know when life begins IMO it's when your umbilical is cut. Until then you arent an individual.
Carrying the what?
If you want to know when life begins IMO it's when your umbilical is cut. Until then you arent an individual.
Your statement is not connected to reality, as you yourself tacitly admit above.
Cordially,
More examples of loose and tangential speech?
So your against abortion but dont give a flying @$%@ about a kid that starves to death or is put to death like Sun Hudson?
How humane of you....
Im basically saying its hypocracy to have your viewpoint.
You are against abortions but have no plan for someone who will be abandoned, neglected or abused. What, is Mark in the Old South going to adopt them all? Who are you to decide for them? Who died and made you the Queen of England?
Speaking of coy whats up with that fat kid stealing lunch money comment. Your joking about starving kids? I dont find that very funny but humor over the internet is a little bit hard to read I guess.
lovely argument but didnt address the points Ive said.
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.