Posted on 03/28/2005 10:21:08 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday to reinstate a state law requiring girls under age 18 to get parental consent for abortions except under the most dire of medical emergencies.
Without comment, justices let stand a lower court ruling that struck down the Idaho law because its provisions on emergency abortions were too strict.
The Supreme Court in its landmark 1973 case, Roe v. Wade, ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to abortion before the fetus is viable and to terminate her pregnancy if it poses a risk to her health.
At issue was whether the Idaho law was unduly burdensome on young mothers by limiting abortions without consent to "sudden and unexpected" instances of physical complications.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said yes, saying there was no reasonable explanation for the restriction. Other emergency medical procedures are allowed on minors without parental permission that do not fit the "sudden and unexpected" category, it said.
The court said the rest of the law could not be salvaged because the emergency provisions were too important.
The justices' move Monday sidesteps a highly charged issue amid continuing speculation about a looming vacancy on the high court. At least three justices have said they believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and liberal groups have vowed to fight any judicial nominee that opposes the landmark ruling.
The last major abortion decision by the Supreme Court came in 2000, when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortion because it failed to provide an exception to protect the mother's health.
The Idaho law had been challenged by Planned Parenthood of Idaho and one of the four Idaho doctors who performs abortions.
Other states also provide for parental consent for abortions in many situations, but Idaho's is considered more stringent than most.
In 2001, there were 738 abortions performed in the state, a drop from 1980, when 2,553 were performed, according to state statistics.
The case is Wasden v. Planned Parenthood of Idaho, 04-703.
agreed, instead of posing and whining we need to figure out how to work with what we have.
Restrictions are possible IF people are willing to stop and THINK about political reality.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
"So, yes, abortion is restricted. Except in any cases where a woman wants an abortion."
Oh. Well. That makes TOTAL sense then. Why would people be against that kind of legal ruling? /sarcasm
(Thanks.)
Dear longtermmemmory,
Sorry, I don't believe any meaningful restrictions are possible under the current regime of judicial tyranny.
Even the president's ban of partial birth abortion hasn't passed muster with the jackbooted thugs in black robes, the American nazgul.
So, even preventing an abortionist from committing the murder of a child 80% outside of his mother violates a woman's "constitutional right" to procure the murder of her children, according to the nine mortal men doomed to die.
sitetest
Dear Diana in Wisconsin,
You're welcome.
"That makes TOTAL sense then."
It certainly does. If you love death.
sitetest
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Because every pregnancy can be said to pose a risk to a woman's health. All she has to do is say she's suffering mental anguish and voila, abortion on demand.
That's why the Idaho statute in this case was legally challenged by Planned Parenthood - because it actually had the nerve to try to narrow the exception clause to only include actual health emergencies.
(And God forbid parents actually getting to know if their minor kids are having invasive surgery.)
That's also why the partial birth abortion laws are being struck down. As the article also states, the SCOTUS struck one down in 2000 because it failed to include a provision allowing exception for the mother's health.
Which brings us right back to the beginning. As long as PBA laws provide for such an exception, anyone can still have a PBA.
Never mind the fact that by their very nature, PBAs are never medically necessary or justifiable, but I digress.
"PBAs are never medically necessary or justifiable, but I digress."
I agree with that. I didn't know how we got from "here" to "there" as far as the abortion laws went. Thanks.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Dear goldstategop,
Well, you have to look at how the hard left looks at law. To them, law is always about power. Whoever has enough power defines "right" and "wrong" as what benefits him. There is no objective right or wrong, no objective morality. "Justice" is an illusion. Law is about the rule of the strong.
Thus, for the hard left, their purpose has been to infiltrate institutions and achieve power, so that they might define right and wrong in the ways that benefit them most.
With abortion, as with Terri, we're seeing the marked progress toward the ability of those who have stolen power to kill whom they want.
And make us thank them for enforcing the rule of law while they do it.
sitetest
Agreed. I wish more people knew about the eugenics of PP's founder Margaret Sanger.
Ah, the spectacle of liberals in a desperate panic that some baby, somewhere, will escape being aborted.
I can hear Bush now in his darth vader type voice, "Well done evil masters, I will continue to put on the show, that I am a conservative Christian using the term compassion to fool them. We will soon crush the rebellion of Christians and honest Americans as I allow terrorists to enter our border while you my evil masters in black destroy their will to fight back"
I would hope that the legislators tell the Supreme Court to go to hell, they have no power.
Good tagline.
So much for private, family matters.
They are bringing it on themselves!
No one has tried that, but I'm pretty sure if they did few abortions would ever be performed in that state.
Last week, Far Left RATS in Congress preached about states' rights. Where are they protecting ID's parental consent law?
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.