Posted on 01/18/2006 7:22:15 AM PST by Pukin Dog
Edited on 01/18/2006 8:01:40 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a lower court was wrong to strike down New Hampshire abortion restrictions, steering clear of a major ruling on whether such laws place an undue burden on women.
The opinion was written by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter at the court on abortion rights.
Justices said a lower court went too far by permanently blocking the law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy.
An appeals court must now reconsider the law, which requires that a parent be informed 48 hours before a minor child has an abortion but makes no exception for a medical emergency that threatens the youth's health.
In what may be O'Connor's last ruling of her career, she said "in this case, the courts below chose the most blunt remedy."
The court had been asked to consider whether the 2003 law put 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 the justices ruled that a Nebraska law banning a type of late-term abortion was too burdensome. That law did not have an exception to protect the mother's health.
Instead, justices did not deal directly with that question.
The opinion, just a brief 10 pages, was a victory for New Hampshire and had been closely watched by other states with restrictions. Justices had been told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19, including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.
"In the case that is before us ... the lower courts need not have invalidated the law wholesale," O'Connor wrote. "Only a few applications of New Hampshire's parental notification statute would prevent a constitutional problem. So long as they are faithful to legislative intent, then, in this case, the lower courts can issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the statute's unconstitutional application."
At least they got this one right.
Good news and a northeastern state too!!!!
It takes a while for change and this is a very good beginning.
LOve it. THis was the ruling they were delaying the Alito Nomination for. They thought that Sandy O would provide them the swing vote in this one.
What next? Will these right wing judges claim that American law rcognizes that we are somehow enowed by our Creator with inalienable rights?
The dimwits will be having a real cow over this one. At last, the Supremes get it right!!!
.
I am not a demorat but I have this to say about her - Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. She's still a flakey lib and good riddance to her.
I'd say that Justice O'Connor (sp?) has embarked upon an excellent strategy to accelerate the confirmation of her successor thus enabling her retirement. ;-)
You may have a point, there.
I don't know why State Law had to be upheld by the Fed in the first place.
Ayotte - I speculated that the Court might forego 5-4 decisions until after Alito is seated, as a matter of avoiding the appearance of being politicized.
I thought I heard them say it was a unanimous vote? That would be even SWEETER!
Libby
What's even better, it was unanimous. The original ruling must have been seriously flawed for Ruth Buzzy and others to go along.
I hope you're right--and that she decided she could finally do the right thing.
I was watching when I saw this. Any links to news about this decision? They didn't really rule on it did they? They just let it stand right? So they niether confirmed or denied it. Interesting.
Fox is reporting it was a unanimous ruling. Yee Haw!
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.