Posted on 05/23/2005 8:50:09 AM PDT by Asphalt
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court, re-entering the politically charged abortion debate, agreed Monday to hear a state appeal seeking to reinstate a law requiring parental notification before minors can terminate their pregnancies.
Justices will review a lower court ruling that struck down New Hampshire's parental notification law. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the 2003 law was unconstitutional because it didn't provide an exception to protect the minor's health in the event of a medical emergency.
The decision to review the emotional case, which came amid wide speculation that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's retirement is looming, will be heard in the next term beginning in October. Liberal groups have vowed to fight any Rehnquist replacement who opposes the high court's landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion.
In their appeal, New Hampshire officials argued that the abortion law need not have an "explicit health exception" because other state provisions call for exceptions when the mother's health is at risk. They also asked justices to clarify the legal standard that is applied when reviewing the constitutionality of abortion laws.
The New Hampshire law required that a parent or guardian be notified if an abortion was to be done on a woman under 18. The notification had to be made in person or by certified mail 48 hours before the pregnancy was terminated.
In its last major abortion decision in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that state abortion laws must provide an exception to protect the mother's health. Justices at the time reasoned that a Nebraska law, which banned so-called "partial-birth" abortions, placed an "undue burden" on women's abortion rights.
Since then, several lower courts have applied that health exception to abortion laws requiring parental notification. The New Hampshire case challenged whether the Supreme Court's 2000 ruling actually required that.
Abortion laws are "entirely different than parental involvement laws, which obviously do not purport to ban abortions, but simply seek to promote the interests of minors in having the benefit of parental involvement," New Hampshire legislators wrote in a friend-of-the-court filing.
Earlier this year, justices declined to hear a challenge to the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling by the woman known as "Jane Roe" who was at the center of the historic case.
It also declined to consider reinstating an Idaho law requiring girls under age 18 to get parental consent for abortions except under the most dire of medical emergencies.
The latest case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.
I don't buy into his "but I'm a libertarian!" bs, either. There are a number of libertarians on the forum I have become well acquainted with, and I don't think any of them are anti-life. One must have the freedom to make it out of the womb in order to have liberty of any kind, after all.
No, there's more to these people than "libertarian." They're repeating the whole pro-abort agenda, word for word.
Yeah, you dont understand the first lick about freedom. Freedom means other people do things even if you hate it. There are lots of things that people do that I hate but I dont say word one to them. I give them their rights. Your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
I hate to say it but your libertarian friends arent very libertarian. If they were true libertarian theyd believe in no governmental laws regulating abortion.
I stray from towing the party line and you scream troll, troll. Well Im way more fiscally conservative than youll ever imagine and I also see things like drugs as an issue of freedom. You claim to not want a nanny state but then you cant see the hypocracy of a 2.6 trillion dollar budget. You wont admit that RealID and other privacy issues are creating a daddy state.
I notice you offer absolutely no solutions to the problems we have. I also see that you are unwilling to say that a child should be born into an abusive situation.
I also see that you have nothing to say about Sun Hudson.
Again who are you to make the call? If you notice I dont say at any point that Im totally right. I just call for the option. Morally who am I to decide whats right? Who are you?
Since you refuse to answer my simple question, I'll do it for you: Unique DNA--unique, individual human life--is created at conception. Period. You may continue to ramble on if you wish, but for me, the argument begins and ends right there.
You have stated on this thread--more than once, IIRC--that you support the "right" of abortion up until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. I am fairly certain that puts you in a minority of one on this forum. There are plenty of anti-lifers like you on this thread, but I'm willing to bet all of them would cringe at your beliefs.
Dan, you know a lot more about the libertarian stance on abortion than I do--would you mind weighin in with my new friend here?
"Your fist ends at the tip of my nose. "
And what about the unborn child's nose?
Hmm?
I find it interesting they say this: "Your fist ends at the tip of my nose." and yet see no conflict with that statement and their stand on abortion.
One basic tenent in libertarian philosophy is over over use of force. Taking the life of another seperate being outside of self-defense is strictly verboten.
Another tenet is that government has no business getting involved in any issues outside of protecting life, liberty, and property.
The question is if libertarians believe a fetus is a baby(as I do), or not.
That summary is pretty much what I thought--thanks for the input!
Re: "Here's a question that even someone not well versed in Latin can try to answer: At what stage of development is unique DNA created?"
conception. The uniting of the man's DNA (sperm) with the woman's (egg).
I thought it was a simple, straightforward question. That's probably why our motorcycle friend ignored it. After all, we don't want any simple, scientific facts getting in the way of the aboriton issue, do we?
It was a simple and straightforward question but the problem with it is that it might force someone to come to terms with the reality of the policy they advocate. We can't have that.
Sticking the head in the sand seems to be a national obsession. I recommend changing our nation bird from the eagle to the ostrich.
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.