Court Taking Up Abortion Notification (Supreme Court Takes Abortion Case)

MyWayNews ^ | May 23, 2005 | HOPE YEN

[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.

[penowa]

You are confusing good reflexes with good judgment.

[yama426]

Fair enough but you like several others have nothing to say about Sun Hudson or any solutions other than letting kids starve.

How humane you are to defend lives that will be lived out in pain and suffering...in abusive homes or maybe no home at all.

Talk about denying reality.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "So your against abortion but dont give a flying @$%@ about a kid that starves to death or is put to death like Sun Hudson?"

Knock it off and take your Haldol. Your assume a person who disagrees with you "dont give a flying @$%@ about a kid that starves to death or is put to death like Sun Hudson?"

You clearly ignored my previous post to you. It is rare for me to run into a person who is for abortion who is not for starving babies like Sun. Since you are FOR abortion I bet your position on cutting the feeding tube is okay but regrettable. I am against BOTH.

A few notes about your erratic and illiterate posts. They would be better received at the DU. Go away troll

[yama426]

So well just leave it to you to define life then since you like know some latin on something.

Yeah.

[Mark in the Old South]

You didn't read my post very well. Which of those items fund killing people?

Until you answer that, the point is off topic. Post a new thread if you want to have a debate about the budget. This topic is abortion and your "points" in the post I responded to has nothing to do with abortion.

[yama426]

Important to have good reflexes in many things...riding Yamahas for example.

Id say good judgement could save at times you but reflexes save you when your racing in the desert everytime. Come out here and race sometime youll see what I mean. If you ride of course.

[yama426]

Ok well another poster was mentioning funding and then dismissed the pork as a red herring. But as a libertarian its more than a red herring to me personally.

Ill try to get back on topic.

[yama426]

To follow up many would have to say that riding a Yamaha through the desert doing 95 or 100mph 5th gear pinned is a lack of good judgement.

Even I question my good judgement when Im on the start gate revving the throttle.

Yet who are you to decide if/when I can ride my 426?

[Mark in the Old South]

The person was making a point about abortion and mentioned funding as an augment to their outrage, hardly justification for your ridiculous rants and wild-eyed ravings.

[PigRigger]

"This court has held one under 18 cannot get the death penalty for anything because of his or her youth. I wonder if age will matter in this case. Should be interesting."

Given the courts stance that anyone under 18 is to immature to understand the consequences of their actions, common sense dictates that the parental notification should be a legal dictate.

Any other ruling would undermine the rational used to exclude the execution of those under 18.

I can't wait to see how they get around their own noose. Unfortunately, I expect they will rule that parental notification laws are unconstitutional.

Let's see, when under 18 you are to immature to drink, to immature to smoke, to immature to serve in the armed forces, and to immature to vote....yet you can request to have a major medical procedure performed without notifying your legal guardian. Ohhh the hypocricy....

[Diamond]

So well just leave it to you to define life then since you like know some latin on something.

Define what?

How humane you are to defend lives that will be lived...

You are contradicting yourself again.

You have admitted that these lives you are talking about being lived are babies and that they are individuals. Just as you were at one time. I don't need to define life; you have done it yourself.

These are the size that your feet were about 10 weeks after you were conceived. At that time, what if your mother had thought that your life would be lived out in pain and suffering...in abusive homes or maybe no home at all?

Cordially,

[Tax-chick]

I'm from Oklahoma, the cultural center of the Universe.

[yama426]

Cute. I like that round about attack telling me to do drugs. Hey the thing is, Ill fight for you to use anything you want if you could handle it.

I dont do prescription meds, I prefer beer and skoal, especially when Im wrenching.

I think your ignoring the fact that I asked for solutions to kids in need but you have none and your just mad because I called you on what I see is hypocracy.

Dont worry Ill go away soon. Ill be riding, you be you.

[yama426]

So you're the Queen of England now as well I see.

[yama426]

If my mom was a crank addict and going to let me get raped (happened recently here) then yes Id prefer not to be born.

If my mom and dad (different case) let raw sewage seep for months into our home and I had to go to school smelling like that yet having no hot water to shower then yes Id prefer if I had never been born.

If I was going to be born only to be starved to death and live a miserable life of pain, then yes, Id like the option of mom terminating me.

In theory your correct. In a perfect world maybe youd even fund some solutions, maybe more than I would. But real life shows more than your baby pictures.

If that pair of feet was going to end up in any of the scenarios above or many many other cases then yes, I would give the right to abort.

Ive seen some nasty stuff in real life.

You should get out more.

Way to cut my quote off to try to prove your point...

Cordially,

[eureka!]

Re#90 My point exactly, albeit much better stated...

[grellis]

I'm just now reading through the further comments...not sarcasm, not a parent, just some kind of soulless, illogical excuse for something. Not sure what. I'm thinking it is some form of troll.

[A CA Guy]

How come minorities haven't caught on to the fact that planned parenthood has set up shop mostly only in their communities to kill a far larger amount of their kids through abortion?

It's an outrage.

[grellis]

I'm trying to make some kind of sense out of your posts but you are nearly incoherent. Try to cut back on the ramblings. If we care about your vehicles or where you live, we'll look into your profile, if you're around long enough to have one.

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?

It is a simple question. Here's a hint: the answer does not have to do with starving kids, motorcycles, or even political leanings. I am looking for a fact here, not a preference. A biological fact.

[Tax-chick]

It's funny that Senator Maxine Waters has the same definition of "human life" as yama###. "Life begins when the umbilical cord is cut ... um, unless you might be poor, or handicapped, or a nuisance to your parents, or something."