Posted on 05/23/2005 7:29:36 AM PDT by CWW
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a long-unsettled issue of abortion law: the standard to be used in judging the constitutionality of a restriction on a women's right to end a pregnancy. The issue arises in the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (docket 04-1144). The case also raises the question whether a parental consent law for minors' abortions must contain a health exception.
I'm guessing they'll throw out the parental consent law altogether.
Oh... wait, I am a betting man. Odds are 2-1 that the Court throws out any parental notification law that does not include a "health" exception.
I don't understand. If a minor goes in for any kind of medical procedure, they need parental consent. Isn't an abortion a medical procedure?
Abortion is the one exception enshrined in the constitution /sarc.
Almost any abortion being committed today can be justified using the fuzzy and dishonest 'logic' of the Left, exemplified by the so-called 'health of the mother exception'.
Murderous Orwellian misuse of the language at its worst.
The health exception requirement is a lock. Chances are about 100 to one in my opinion that they'll throw out a consent requirement that has no health exception.
The question is whether they are just going to say "We don't care if there is a health exception. All parental consent laws are unconstitutional. It's none of the parents' business whether their kid has an abortion."
Regretably, Sandra Day O'Connor has become a reliable supporter of "abortion rights." She is also now in the forefront of applying "international law" to SCOTUS cases.
I would have preferred to see SCOTUS refuse this case, until we have a chance to change the balance of the court. It's always harder to reverse a prior decision. Now there are already dozens of decisions that need to be reversed.
1) A Mack truck can be driven through the "health" loophole. The justices have to know that.
2) The court's taking of this case right at the time of the senate showdown will cause both sides to dig in their heels all the more. There will be no compromise.
I really don't know if those conservatives will support the consent law. They could let it stand based on stare decisis. Afterall, if you're not going to reverse Roe, then the consent law probably is unconstitutional.
Planned parenthood sees girls without consent, issues birth control, etc. my daughter went at age 17, they sent her to the health department for free BC pills. Daughter told me they see girls 12 years old, and never tell the parents.
This should be pretty easy to decide, let's look at the Abortion Clause in the Constitution ... it must be here somewhere ...
Regretably, Sandra Day O'Connor has become a reliable supporter of "abortion rights." She is also now in the forefront of applying "international law" to SCOTUS cases.
Well of course they do. They're the ones who defined "health" in the Doe v. Bolton decision. Remember, Roe v. Wade only guaranteed the right to abortion in the first trimester. It allowed for abortions in the second or third trimester only for the "life or health" of the mother.
But then, what do you know, in the companion case Doe v. Bolton, the court defined "health" like this:
"[T]he medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors -- physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age -- relevant to the well being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health."
That pretty much took all the teeth out of the abortion restrictions that were present in Roe v. Wade.
Result: "abortion necessary for the health of the woman."
Yes. It amounts to abortion on demand for any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all.
You forgot a question:
What will the parents do when faced with the staggering emotional and financial strain of either losing their daughter or having to nurse their daughter through the complications caused by a botched medical procedure that they never gave their consent for, anyway? After all, the parents are financially and legally responsible for their daughter, except where abortion comes in.
Ok...a medical aspect. Is that the only reason parents want to know? I think my dad would chop off my arms and legs if I came close to a situation like that.
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.