Posted on 05/29/2026 10:40:47 PM PDT by Morgana
In a decision pro-life advocates decried as a betrayal of Nevada’s children, the Nevada Supreme Court has blocked enforcement of a 40-year-old state law requiring abortionists to notify parents before killing a teenagers’ baby in an abortion.
The ruling reverses a lower court decision and directs issuance of a preliminary injunction preventing Senate Bill 510 from taking effect while the legal challenge proceeds.
The 1985 pro-life law required notification to a parent or guardian — or judicial approval — for abortions involving unmarried, unemancipated girls under 18. It never fully took effect due to prior court injunctions but became potentially enforceable after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
The court sided with Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion challengers, ruling the law unconstitutionally vague.
Justices focused on the phrase “personally notified,” finding it failed to provide clear guidance to physicians on how notification should occur or what constitutes a “reasonable effort.”
Nevada Right to Life sharply criticized the decision.
“The Nevada Supreme Court betrayed Nevada’s children,” the group said in a statement. “It struck down Senate Bill 510, a 40-year-old law that asked one simple, humane thing: before a doctor performs an abortion on a girl under 18, her parents deserve to know. Not to give permission. Not to give consent. Simply and solely to know.”
The organization stressed the law’s protective intent for vulnerable minors.
“Think about who this law protected. A 13-year-old doesn’t walk into a clinic alone. Sometimes she is brought there by the man who got her pregnant. Sometimes that man is her abuser. Sometimes he is a trafficker trying to make the evidence of his crime disappear before her family ever finds out. SB 510 was not a veto for parents. It was a lifeline. And for girls in dangerous homes, a court bypass was still available. This law left no one behind.”
Nevada Right to Life called the court’s reasoning flawed.
“The Court’s excuse for striking it down is shameful. The justices looked at the phrase ‘personally notified,’ admitted in their own opinion that it has a plain and clear meaning, and then struck the law down anyway. They invented a long list of imaginary problems that might someday confuse a doctor. This was not honest legal analysis. It was a conclusion dressed up as reasoning. Courts across the country have upheld laws exactly like this one for decades. Not a single one was ever thrown out because adults could not understand the words ‘notify the parents.’ Nevada’s justices chose to be the exception, and they chose it for a reason.”
The group also faulted Attorney General Aaron Ford’s defense of the law.
“And they were made bolder by an Attorney General who refused to truly fight. Aaron Ford is running for governor. Planned Parenthood, the same organization that went to court to kill this law, has endorsed his campaign. His office gave up key legal ground, dropped arguments in the middle of the case, and never once stood before the Court and said what needed to be said: this law exists because girls are being exploited, and their parents have a right to know. That is not a defense. That is a surrender with paperwork.”
The ruling does not permanently invalidate the law but keeps it blocked pending further proceedings.
Abortion remains legal in Nevada up to 24 weeks under a 1990 voter-approved initiative. Pro-life supporters argue the decision prioritizes abortion over family involvement and the safety of young girls.
ACTION: Aaron Ford’s office needs to be flooded with calls and complaints until he cannot ignore the people of Nevada for one more minute. Tell him exactly what he needs to hear: Stand with parents, not with predators of little girls!
Fill out the official complaint form right now:
FILE COMPLAINT HERE
Then pick up the phone and call. Call today. Call right now!
Reno Office: 775-687-2100
Las Vegas Office: 702-486-3420
FILE COMPLAINT HERE
California voters voted for parental notification laws TWICE, but the courts stopped it.
I’m going to say it after the Epstein files.
Makes you wonder who is screwing our children because we know by the Epstein files abortion was used to cover up their crimes.
^ Needs to be emphasized. Feel free to post more on the topic! I'm still learning.
Yes, why are they so adamant about preserving it?
“^ Needs to be emphasized. Feel free to post more on the topic! I’m still learning. “
I’ve been posting stories for decades now that abortion has been used to cover up sex abuse. One case shocked me so bad because it was in a town I used to live in.
HUNTINGTON, W.Va. (WCHS/WVAH) – A Cabell County man convicted in a case involving the sexual assault of an 11-year-old girl, who was then impregnated and forced to have an abortion, will be released on probation.
Michael J. Adkins, 38, of Ona was sentenced to five to 15 years in 2018 for a probation violation involving the case. In 2015, Adkins entered a Kennedy plea to the sexual assault and waswas originally sentenced in November 2017 to five years probation and 50 years of supervised release.
***************
Yes of course the abortion clinic in Charleston never reported abuse nor got into trouble for not reporting it. This man and his wife are sleazeballs. Yea his wife knew and let him.
Heartbreaking but not surprising.
Horrible. Re: Michael Adkins. And Re: Jeffrey Epstein:
You may have posted this story:
- The diary of a 16-year-old trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein reveals she gave birth to at least one child, who was immediately taken from her.
- The girl also appears to speak about an abortion.
- She accused Epstein of wanting to create a “superior gene pool.”
- Another woman, Elizabeth Stein, reported in 2023 that she was also forced into an abortion during the time she was trafficked by Epstein.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/epstein-files-forced-abortion-stolen-babies
” She accused Epstein of wanting to create a “superior gene pool.””
Yes he was. Funny how the Nazis did the same thing yet it’s okay when a Jew does it?
Epstein files reveal proposal to fund ‘designer babies and cloning’ startup
Incompetent decision, i.e. pure activism. And evil because intentionally dishonest.
The issues here are the age of emancipation, protection of a minor, and informed consent. The financially conflicted provider -- in this case, the abortionist -- should never be the gatekeeper.
I don't want to go on at length parsing the language of a statute and a judicial decision I've not read, but the underlying fact of the matter is this:
Children must be protected. Legislatures have spelled out innumerable limits -- the age at which a person can drive, enlist in the military, buy a gun, purchase alcohol or tobacco products, incur debt, get married, quit school, get a full time job, get a tattoo, etc. The list goes on and on, and there are different ages set for different things. But limits are set until a person reaches legal maturity and is entitled to decide for themselves.
In none of these domains is the financially conflicted provider allowed to be the gatekeeper.
The obligation of the provider is to ensure that the minor has the consent of a legally competent guardian. Ordinarily this is a parent. But in the case of abortion, legislatures have always recognized that there are difficult family situations where going to a parent is not an acceptable option. That is why every state that requires parental notification also allows for a judicial bypass procedure.
The obligation of the provider is to ensure that the minor presents proof of approval by a lawful guardian. In the case of abortion, this would consist at least of a parental signature on the relevant form, and as a practical matter, the parent would usually accompany the minor, who may not even be old enough to drive.
If the minor walks in off the street, or calls for an appointment, the job of the provider is to ask if they have consent. If they don't, the abortionist (typically the Planned Parenthood clinic) would have the duty to inform the minor of the consent requirement. The abortionist could also hand out the number of the magistrate (I suppose usually a family court judge) who is lawfully designated to fulfil this purpose. But an abortionist should not be the sole gatekeeper. Someone who doesn't have a profit motive front and center -- someone functioning with the best interest of the child as the priority -- should talk the minor through her options.
This is not hard. It takes deliberate obfuscation to evade the intent. But if the line is not maintained, in essence we have abolished any age of consent for abortions, which means that children are legally emancipated in this matter from birth onwards. That implies the complete sexual autonomy of children.
And that is ultimately what the left wants, because the sexual revolutionaries are desperate to get their hands on kids, including other people's children.
Maybe liquor stores, cigar stores, and military recruiters should run to court, using the Nevada Supreme Court's ruling to advance the position that it is an unreasonable burden to require them to check.
I can’t see how the court used law to come to this conclusion; it seems more personal preference.
Once you look into the manner in which some courts act you realize they are less intellectually rigorous than many of the industries in which the general public is employed...industries that follow Good Practices...GDP, GLP, GMP, etc...truckers, technicians, factory workers.
can’t sign a contract, can’t get a tattoo, can’t buy a cigarette or a beer, can’t be held fully liable if they commit a crime ect ect..
but can get an abortion, without parents’ knowledge.
Yet the parents will be responsible for any medical care going forward from any complications.
EC
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.