Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court to Get Abortion Rights Case
www.chippewa.com ^ | November 30, 2005 | GINA HOLLAND Associated Press

Posted on 11/30/2005 8:00:15 AM PST by mdittmar

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court will consider its first abortion rights case under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, with an unpredictable outcome because of the court's changing makeup.

The stakes are significant in the dispute over a New Hampshire law requiring minors to tell a parent before ending a pregnancy, although the case does not challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that said abortion is a fundamental constitutional right.

The outcome is likely to signal where the high court is headed on an issue that has been emotional and divisive among the justices and around the country.

Abortion was a prominent subject in Roberts' confirmation hearings and has emerged as a major issue in President Bush's nomination of appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. O'Connor has been the swing vote in support of abortion rights.

If Alito is confirmed by the Senate early next year, his vote could be needed to break a tie in the New Hampshire case being argued before justices. Abortion cases generally draw large crowds at the Supreme Court, but buzz around Wednesday's argument was particularly frenzied because the court until this fall had no turnover for 11 years.

New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte told justices in a filing that the law "provides pregnant minors with the benefit of parental guidance and assistance in exercising what is undoubtedly a difficult choice."

O'Connor, a supporter of Roe v. Wade and the first woman named to the court, is retiring after 24 years and will likely leave the court before the case is decided. A Senate vote is planned for January on Alito, who is expected to be more receptive to abortion restrictions.

It is unknown how Roberts or Alito would vote on a rollback of Roe v. Wade.

Meanwhile, the court could use this case to make it extremely difficult for abortion rights groups to challenge restrictions, without dealing with the sticky issue of overturning Roe. At issue is the legal standard for courts in handling lawsuits over abortion laws.

The New Hampshire case is being closely watched by the dozens of states that require minors to tell a parent or get permission before having an abortion.

Justices were told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19 states, including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.

The court is considering whether the 2003 New Hampshire law puts an "undue burden" on a woman in choosing to end a pregnancy. O'Connor is an architect of the undue burden standard, and was the deciding vote in the last abortion case five years ago, when justices ruled that a Nebraska law banning a type of late-term abortion was too burdensome.

That law, like the one at issue Wednesday, did not have an exception to protect the mother's health. New Hampshire argues that exceptions are permitted when the mother's health is at risk, and that should be enough.

The law requires a parent or guardian be notified when an abortion is planned for someone under 18, followed by a 48-hour waiting period. A judge can waive the requirement.

"In an emergency, a woman needs to go to the hospital not a courthouse," justices were told in a filing by Jennifer Dalven, attorney for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England which challenged the law.

The Supreme Court agreed to allow news organizations to air audio recording of the court's argument immediately after its conclusion, giving the public its first chance to hear the new chief justice on the bench. Cameras are not allowed in the court.

Roberts, 50, replaced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in September after a yearlong fight with cancer.

Justices agreed to hear the New Hampshire case before Rehnquist's death _ and before O'Connor surprised colleagues with news that she was stepping down.

The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

A service of the Associated Press(AP)


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; alito; ayotte; docket; scotus
"In an emergency, a woman needs to go to the hospital not a courthouse," justices were told in a filing by Jennifer Dalven, attorney for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England which challenged the law.

This is about parental notification for those under 18 jennifer,what would be the emergency?,that they need to suck their child down a sink immediately,or that planned parenthood won't get their $500.00 for going it?

1 posted on 11/30/2005 8:00:16 AM PST by mdittmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

Will Common Sense PREVAIL ????


2 posted on 11/30/2005 8:05:47 AM PST by Zenith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
-Margaret Sanger, Founder Planned Parenthood.
3 posted on 11/30/2005 8:06:12 AM PST by Mulch (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

"Groups and parties working for a new social order must include [abortion] in their programmes. No social system, no worker's democracy, no Socialist republic can operate successfully and maintain its ideals unless the practice of birth control is encouraged to a marked and efficient degree." -- Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood

(Woman And The New Race, Sanger, M., 1920, Brentano's Publishers, NY, p.148)


4 posted on 11/30/2005 8:08:08 AM PST by WorkingClassFilth (The problem with being a 'big tent' Party is that the clowns are seated with the paying customers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zenith

It's six to two in favor of the Bolsheviks, with Roberts still unknown.

Don't get too excited.


5 posted on 11/30/2005 8:32:42 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

"The New Hampshire case is being closely watched by the dozens of states that require minors to tell a parent or get permission before having an abortion."


Any medical procedure requires permission from a parent or guardian if the patient is a minor. Why should abortion be the exception to that? My daughter can't get her ears pierced without my signature!


6 posted on 11/30/2005 8:34:20 AM PST by freelancer (If we do not win the war against terrorism, everything else is irrelevant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

The problem is that if a parent doesn't know their child had SURGERY (as much as the libs like to act like it's no more process than getting a teeth cleaning, which WOULD require parental notification BTW) then how are they to know to keep an eye on them for negative side affects of anestethia, excessive bleeding, etc...

Stupid stupid. I have three daughters. They BETTER side with the kids on this. There is no excuse for no parental notification on this issue.


7 posted on 11/30/2005 8:42:53 AM PST by sandbar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freelancer

"Any medical procedure requires permission from a parent or guardian if the patient is a minor. Why should abortion be the exception to that? My daughter can't get her ears pierced without my signature!
"

That's true. On the other hand, sometimes a parent or step-parent is the reason for the pregnancy. That's one of the reasons for this situation. You don't even want to know how many cases of parental sexual abuse there are out there.


8 posted on 11/30/2005 8:43:12 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

" with an unpredictable outcome because of the court's changing makeup."

The 'unpredictabel outcome' has nothing to do with Roberts being Chief Justice.

The makeup of the court is exactly what it was before Rhenquist died and Roberts became CJ.

The press seems to forget that O'Conner hasn't gone anywhere.
Yet!


9 posted on 11/30/2005 8:47:45 AM PST by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

My understanding is that if arguments start before Alito is sworn in, then he will not be deciding the outcome. Isn't that correct?


10 posted on 11/30/2005 8:47:51 AM PST by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

Not only that, but surely if you believe Planned Parenthood, the majority of Americans want abortion to stay legal. Ok, taken in that context, if a person's daughter was IMMEMENTLY at risk of death if she didn't have an abortion - how many parents would object? Which child do you save?

So is this case even NECESSARY?? Surely a parent would consent to save their child's life in that instant!


11 posted on 11/30/2005 8:56:00 AM PST by mosquitobite (As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Not sure if he can review the case and vote,if appointed,or if he has to be seated at the time the case is heard.


12 posted on 11/30/2005 8:57:18 AM PST by mdittmar (May God watch over those who serve,and have served, to keep us free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
On the other hand, sometimes a parent or step-parent is the reason for the pregnancy. That's one of the reasons for this situation. You don't even want to know how many cases of parental sexual abuse there are out there.


So who is being protected by this secrecy? The child or the rapist?

13 posted on 11/30/2005 9:15:50 AM PST by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN

"So who is being protected by this secrecy? The child or the rapist?"




The girl who was molested by a father or step-father is being protected. Can you not see the problem with notification when there has been this kind of abuse.

Don't misunderstand. I am not a pro-lifer. I don't find support for abortion under some circumstances to be in conflict with conservatism.

One of the circumstances where I support abortion is in the case of incest or sexual abuse by a relative. Rape is another.

I'm not going to argue those positions in this thread. My point is that a strict parental notification law can prevent a victim from receiving a legal medical service.

Get Roe v. Wade reversed and leave it up to the states. That's my recommendation.


14 posted on 11/30/2005 9:30:07 AM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
The girl who was molested by a father or step-father is being protected. Can you not see the problem with notification when there has been this kind of abuse.


Of course I see it which means the girl needs to tell the authority her father has been raping her.

By making it easy to get rid of the evidence of the crime we are allowing the abuse of these young girls to continue.

15 posted on 11/30/2005 9:39:28 AM PST by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar

Why is this billed an "Abortion Rights" case and not a "Parental Rights" or "Family Rights" case? After all, it does not deal with all abortions situations, just ones involving a minor and then only in relation to their parents and notification.


16 posted on 11/30/2005 9:41:41 AM PST by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW

Placemark.


17 posted on 11/30/2005 9:48:11 AM PST by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: mdittmar
The court is considering whether the 2003 New Hampshire law puts an "undue burden" on a woman in choosing to end a pregnancy

Being sexually mature does not a "woman" make...

18 posted on 11/30/2005 9:52:25 AM PST by trebb ("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; mdittmar
My understanding is that if arguments start before Alito is sworn in, then he will not be deciding the outcome. Isn't that correct?

If Alito is sworn in before the case is decided, several months from now, then his vote will count even though he wasn't here for the oral argument. Barring some huge delay, Alito's vote counts and O'Connor's is out. (Thank God.)

19 posted on 11/30/2005 10:01:50 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

do you actually have the numbers for your boast? The number of abortions due to incest is less than 1/10 of one percent. Out of every 1000 abortions, maybe 1 or 2 at most are becuase of that and most likely none are.


20 posted on 11/30/2005 5:20:15 PM PST by jeltz25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson