12-01-2005, 02:13 AM
Notification Law
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 30, 736 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with a New Hampshire law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy, with no hint the justices were ready for a dramatic retreat on abortion rights under their new chief.
The court is dealing with its first abortion case in five years, as well as the first in the brief tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts.
****The case does not challenge the 1973
Roe v. Wade ruling that declared abortion a fundamental constitutional right, and the justices seemed to be seeking a compromise that would avoid breaking new ground****.
Several said the law was flawed, because it 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.
At the same time, the court appeared unhappy with lower court decisions that blocked the law from being enforced at all.
"This case doesn't involve an emergency situation," Roberts said.
The stakes are significant since the ruling could signal where the high court is headed under Roberts and after the retirement of Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor.
Abortion was a prominent subject in Roberts' confirmation hearings and has emerged as a major issue in
President Bush's nomination of appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace O'Connor, who has been the swing vote in support of abortion rights.
Protesters demonstrated outside — singing, chanting and praying — and the argument inside the court was at times contentious, too, with justices talking over each other and over the lawyers.
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte struggled to field sharp questions on why state lawmakers had made an exception to allow abortions when a young mother's life — but not her health — was in danger. The court has held that abortion restrictions should include a health exception.
Doctors would fear being prosecuted or sued if they performed an abortion on a severely sick minor who did not want to notify a parent, several justices said.
"That's the real problem here for the doctor who's on the line," said Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The law allows a judge to waive the requirement, and Justice
Antonin Scalia said "It takes 30 seconds to place a phone call."
"It seems to me that the bypass procedure can go a long way toward saving this statute," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.
Tracking down a judge and making the case for a waiver could take too long, said Jennifer Dalven, an attorney with the
American Civil Liberties Union who argued on behalf of
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
"For women in some emergencies, every minute is critical. Every minute puts them at risk of losing their future fertility and of major organ damage," she said. "I don't think saving a statute is worth putting a teen's health at risk."
When Alito worked for the Reagan administration, he criticized Roe v. Wade. In a memo released by the National Archives on Wednesday, Alito said that because a reversal of Roe was unlikely, the Reagan administration should instead try to persuade justices to accept state limits on abortions.
The New Hampshire case is being closely watched by states that require minors to tell a parent or get permission before having an abortion. The justices were told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19, including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.
The Bush administration is backing New Hampshire, and Solicitor General Paul Clement told the court that "it's literally a one in 1,000 possibility that there's going to be an emergency" and problem under the law.
The court is considering whether the 2003 New Hampshire law puts an "undue burden" on a woman in choosing to end a pregnancy. O'Connor is an architect of the undue burden standard, and was the deciding vote in the last abortion case 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.
The case was one of two dealing with abortion at the court on Wednesday. In a second, the justices considered whether federal extortion and racketeering laws can be used to sue abortion clinic demonstrators.
Another major case awaiting justices is the Bush administration's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down a federal ban on a procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortions. The federal law has no health exception.
The high court agreed to allow news organizations to air an audio recording of the court's argument in the New Hampshire case, giving the public away from the court its first chance to hear the new chief justice on the bench. Cameras are not allowed in the court.
The justices agreed to hear the New Hampshire case before Rehnquist's death — and before O'Connor surprised colleagues with news that she was stepping down.
O'Connor was not particularly active in the hour-long argument, and her vote will count only if she is still on the court when the ruling is made. She suggested there might be a way to deal with the lack of a health exception, without blocking the law entirely.
The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.
This is not about getting perantal consent its about parental l NOTIFICATION when abortion involves a minor child .
http//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion
I think parents should be notified as one of the judges said QUOTE... in cases of emergency it takes 30 seconds to make a phone call .END QUOTE
The parants are the first ones who would be of help to the girl after such a ordeal
What do you think ??
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 30, 736 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with a New Hampshire law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy, with no hint the justices were ready for a dramatic retreat on abortion rights under their new chief.
The court is dealing with its first abortion case in five years, as well as the first in the brief tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts.
****The case does not challenge the 1973
Roe v. Wade ruling that declared abortion a fundamental constitutional right, and the justices seemed to be seeking a compromise that would avoid breaking new ground****.
Several said the law was flawed, because it 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.
At the same time, the court appeared unhappy with lower court decisions that blocked the law from being enforced at all.
"This case doesn't involve an emergency situation," Roberts said.
The stakes are significant since the ruling could signal where the high court is headed under Roberts and after the retirement of Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor.
Abortion was a prominent subject in Roberts' confirmation hearings and has emerged as a major issue in
President Bush's nomination of appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace O'Connor, who has been the swing vote in support of abortion rights.
Protesters demonstrated outside — singing, chanting and praying — and the argument inside the court was at times contentious, too, with justices talking over each other and over the lawyers.
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte struggled to field sharp questions on why state lawmakers had made an exception to allow abortions when a young mother's life — but not her health — was in danger. The court has held that abortion restrictions should include a health exception.
Doctors would fear being prosecuted or sued if they performed an abortion on a severely sick minor who did not want to notify a parent, several justices said.
"That's the real problem here for the doctor who's on the line," said Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The law allows a judge to waive the requirement, and Justice
Antonin Scalia said "It takes 30 seconds to place a phone call."
"It seems to me that the bypass procedure can go a long way toward saving this statute," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.
Tracking down a judge and making the case for a waiver could take too long, said Jennifer Dalven, an attorney with the
American Civil Liberties Union who argued on behalf of
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
"For women in some emergencies, every minute is critical. Every minute puts them at risk of losing their future fertility and of major organ damage," she said. "I don't think saving a statute is worth putting a teen's health at risk."
When Alito worked for the Reagan administration, he criticized Roe v. Wade. In a memo released by the National Archives on Wednesday, Alito said that because a reversal of Roe was unlikely, the Reagan administration should instead try to persuade justices to accept state limits on abortions.
The New Hampshire case is being closely watched by states that require minors to tell a parent or get permission before having an abortion. The justices were told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19, including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.
The Bush administration is backing New Hampshire, and Solicitor General Paul Clement told the court that "it's literally a one in 1,000 possibility that there's going to be an emergency" and problem under the law.
The court is considering whether the 2003 New Hampshire law puts an "undue burden" on a woman in choosing to end a pregnancy. O'Connor is an architect of the undue burden standard, and was the deciding vote in the last abortion case 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.
The case was one of two dealing with abortion at the court on Wednesday. In a second, the justices considered whether federal extortion and racketeering laws can be used to sue abortion clinic demonstrators.
Another major case awaiting justices is the Bush administration's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down a federal ban on a procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortions. The federal law has no health exception.
The high court agreed to allow news organizations to air an audio recording of the court's argument in the New Hampshire case, giving the public away from the court its first chance to hear the new chief justice on the bench. Cameras are not allowed in the court.
The justices agreed to hear the New Hampshire case before Rehnquist's death — and before O'Connor surprised colleagues with news that she was stepping down.
O'Connor was not particularly active in the hour-long argument, and her vote will count only if she is still on the court when the ruling is made. She suggested there might be a way to deal with the lack of a health exception, without blocking the law entirely.
The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.
This is not about getting perantal consent its about parental l NOTIFICATION when abortion involves a minor child .
http//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion
I think parents should be notified as one of the judges said QUOTE... in cases of emergency it takes 30 seconds to make a phone call .END QUOTE
The parants are the first ones who would be of help to the girl after such a ordeal
What do you think ??