Abortion and the Roberts court

The Washington Times ^ | 11-30-05 | OP ED

[JZelle]

An abortion test begins today for the Roberts Supreme Court, one that will shed some light on whether the Roberts years are likely to be genuinely conservative ones. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England -- a case about New Hampshire's parental-consent laws -- will have practical consequences for states that reject the no-questions-asked abortion culture. At immediate issue is whether state parental-consent laws must make exceptions for an underage mother's health, not just her possible death, as New Hampshire's 2003 law did. New Hampshire was one of only five states nationwide whose law did not make the health exception. Last year, when the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston threw it out, New Hampshire's law had not yet gone into effect. The most important question the court will consider, then, is this: Will the Roberts court endorse the 1st Circuit's strict interpretation of the health-exception rule? In the past, more liberal Supreme Courts have upheld parental-notification laws, but the court has not ruled definitively on what health-exception rules are required by the Constitution when a state passes a parental-notification law. Stenberg v. Carhart, a 2000 ruling on a Nebraska abortion statute authored by Justice Stephen Breyer, befuddled the issue by ignoring standards set in the cases U.S. v. Salerno (1987) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

[Lexinom]

NH didn't make the so-called health-exception because it's never needed - and if in place provides a loophole (mother is mentally unstable because of a hangnail, and needs an abortion).

The only true cases where it IS genuinely needed are extremely rare tubal pregnancies - and IIRC the fetus is gently removed surgically, not brutally ripped out, though he still dies.