High court dodges abortion ruling

cnn ^ | January 18, 2006

[paudio]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a lower court was wrong to strike down New Hampshire abortion restrictions, steering clear of a major ruling on whether such laws place an undue burden on women.

The opinion was written by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter at the court on abortion rights.

Justices said a lower court went too far by permanently blocking the law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy.

An appeals court must now reconsider the law, which requires that a parent be informed 48 hours before a minor child has an abortion but makes no exception for a medical emergency that threatens the youth's health.

[ClearCase_guy]

I guess I don't see where the unanimous ruling is a dodge.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>Justices said a lower court went too far by permanently blocking the law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy.

I fail to see the dodge here. They were given a decision to consider and struck it down.

[Draco]

Consider this is CNN. This will bounce back to the lower courts for further consideration. The fact that all 9 sent it back means that they all felt, regardless of position, that the record was not sufficiently developed. This will be back before the Supreme Court on a more complete record, either in this case or a similar one. I consider this a minor victory.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"This will be back before the Supreme Court on a more complete record, either in this case or a similar one. I consider this a minor victory."

The RATS are fearful that this winds up back in SCOTUS with Alito on the bench.

[Mr. Brightside]

I consider this a minor victory.

I accept this as the shape of things to come. Even the Courts liberals can see that unlimited abortions with without reasonable restrictions are not in the country's future.

[Blood of Tyrants]

five years ago, when the justices ruled that a Nebraska law banning a type of late-term abortion was too burdensome. That law did not have an exception to protect the mother's health.

And that was a very poor decision based on politics rather than medical necessity because there is NEVER a "health" reason to perform a partial birth abortion except for the convenience of the mother.

[AntiGuv]

Because they did not rule on the constitutional challenge to abortion restrictions; they merely ruled that the lower court's remedy was too broad. In other words, they said that it's unnecessary to throw out the entire statute in order to correct the alleged constitutional violation. They did not say that the alleged constitutional violation (restricting a woman's access to abortion) was in fact not a violation at all.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

They punted. They didn't actually address the issue raised. It will go back to the lower court, be redecided, reappealed and come back next year. Which is just as well since by that time Justice Alito will have replaced the muddle-headed O'Connor.

[Wristpin]

Funny how the libs claim abortion to be a normal "medical procedure". If a Doctor performed any other medical procedure on a minor without parental permission there would be hell to pay.

[AntiGuv]

These were the questions before the Supreme Court:

1. Did the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals apply the correct standard in a facial challenge to a statute regulating abortion when it ruled that the undue burden standard cited in Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 876-77 (1992) and Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 921 (2000) applied rather than the "no set of circumstances" standard set forth in United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987)?
2. Whether the New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 132:24-28 (2003) preserves the health and life of the minor through the Act's judicial bypass mechanism and/or other state statutes.

I've not read the decision yet, but it appears that the Court addressed neither question. What it said was that even if the Circuit Court applied the right standard and even if the NH parental notification does not meet the Court's constitutional threshold, the remedy of the lower court was still too broad.

So, the Supreme Court has sent it back down for a narrower remedy, and then once that is applied it will then deal with the actual questions above.

[pgkdan]

The RATS are fearful that this winds up back in SCOTUS with Alito on the bench.

It won't make any difference whether Alito's there or not. At most, you only have four Justices who might rule in a way that Pro-Lifer's like myself would cheer. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito and Roberts and Alito are not sure bets.

[jamese777]

"It won't make any difference whether Alito's there or not. At most, you only have four Justices who might rule in a way that Pro-Lifer's like myself would cheer. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito and Roberts and Alito are not sure bets."
Yes, its already obvious that Justice Kennedy is moving to the left slightly to occupy the O'Conner swing vote position.He wrote yesterday's Oregon assisted suicide opinion.

[ModelBreaker]

It won't make any difference whether Alito's there or not. At most, you only have four Justices who might rule in a way that Pro-Lifer's like myself would cheer. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito and Roberts and Alito are not sure bets.

You are right. I keep posting the same thing; and the optimists just keep ignoring it. At most, Alito and Roberts will help the Court nibble at the edges of Roe and Casey--in all likelihood, fewer things will held to be 'undue burdens.'

We need to replace one of the five pro-abortion justices that remain AFTER Alito's confirmation before there is even a hope that Roe and Casey will be overruled.

[Zack Nguyen]

but makes no exception for a medical emergency that threatens the youth's health.

Somehow I seriously doubt that. For this we would have to believe that pro-lifers are rubbing their hands together in glee, hoping against hope that a teenage mother will die rather than abort her baby. The pro-choice groups and their friends in the MSM may believe that, but I don't.

[ModelBreaker]

Yes, its already obvious that Justice Kennedy is moving to the left slightly to occupy the O'Conner swing vote position.He wrote yesterday's Oregon assisted suicide opinion.

Seems to me he's been to the left of O'Conner for some time. He was the author of Lawrence v. Texas, one of the few cases that can make Roe v. Wade look like a well-reasoned exercise in judicial moderation in comparison.

[amdgmary]

"We need to replace one of the five pro-abortion justices that remain AFTER Alito's confirmation.."

Isn't Stevens ready to retire yet? He's about 85 years old.

[wildbill]

The Court is going to peck away at the broad swath of the abortion issue, rather than reverse the original decision which identified "a penumbra of an emanation' as the basis for a Constitutional right.

[AntiGuv]

So long as GWB is in office I think the only way Stevens is gonna retire from the Court is if he's carried out on a stretcher.