November 29, 2005

Abortion case to be argued tomorrow.

Linda Greenhouse writes about Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England:
When the Supreme Court meets on Wednesday to hear its first abortion case in five years, the topic will be familiar: a requirement that doctors notify a pregnant teenager's parent before performing an abortion....

[O]f the 43 states with parental-involvement statutes, New Hampshire is one of only five that do not also provide an exception for non-life-threatening medical emergencies, and it was on this basis that two lower federal courts declared the law unconstitutional....

Waiting in the wings, as the justices surely know, is another, perhaps even more highly charged abortion case. The Bush administration recently filed an appeal in defense of the federal ban on the procedure that abortion opponents have labeled "partial birth abortion," and the court must decide shortly whether to hear it.

CORRECTION: "Today" in the title corrected to "tomorrow." It is not Wednesday!

7 comments:

tefta said...

Surely these cases can wait until January when Alito will be sitting on the court.

Too Many Jims said...

Why should the cases wait until Alito gets there? Because we know how he would decide?

SippicanCottage said...

In quarreling about the shadow we often lose the substance.

Troy said...

I'll be haapy so long as a child's right to have a major medical procedure without telling her parents is upheld. Parental notification! What are we brutes?

reader_iam said...

Until someone can explain to me why parents have to provide written permission for, say, their teenage-daughter to carry Midol in her purse, I'll never, ever understand the problem with parental notification in the case of abortion (and--do I have to say it?--OF COURSE, there are RARE exceptions--and those are addressed in every serious parental-notification bill).

I've always thought this one is a no-brainer--unless there is actually an additional, ulterior motive that no one wants to talk about.

So I won't.

Aspasia M. said...

I thought that court watchers were looking at this case because of the health exception question?

grace said...

Please understand that this case IS NOT about the legality of mandated parental involvement in the abortion decision. That question has been resolved previously and parental involvement laws are in fact constitutional so long as there is an adequate judicial bypass option available to young woman AND there are exceptions for women's health and lives.

The question before the court in Ayotte is twofold: first, can the state regulate abortion without considering a woman's health (the constitution has long prohibited a state from putting its interest above a woman's health)? Second, will the court reverse over 30 years of precendent by refusing to hold that the New Hampshire law is facially invalid?