Skip to comments.Supreme Court turns down appeal over abortion counseling
Posted on 02/24/2003 8:02:18 AM PST by RCW2001
(02-24) 07:23 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --
The Supreme Court turned down an appeal over a requirement that women get in-person counseling before they can have an abortion, a case that could have reopened the emotional question of when restrictions on abortion become unconstitutional.
The court did not comment in rejecting Monday's appeal from women's health clinics and an abortion doctor in Indiana, who argued that the face-to-face meeting is too onerous. A lower court judge had found that the requirement would deny abortions to an estimated 10- to 12 percent of women who wanted them.
The high court's action probably means the Indiana law will take full effect for the first time since the state legislature passed it eight years ago.
The law requires abortion providers to tell women about medical risks and alternatives to abortion at least 18 hours before the procedure, and to give the information in person. Currently, women get the information over the phone.
The high court has allowed states to place a variety of restrictions on abortion, including waiting periods and requirements for "informed consent," in the 30 years since the Roe v. Wade ruling that allowed legal abortions.
The court has also cautioned that abortion restrictions cannot go too far, and the Indiana clinics said a lower federal appeals court flouted that warning when it cleared the way for in-person counseling last year.
The high court has not considered requirements like Indiana's, which abortion providers and women's organizations said is particularly unfair to poor women and those who must travel from rural areas.
In practice, the law requires women to make two clinic appointments at least a day apart, opponents said, which can be difficult for any woman who would have trouble explaining her absence to an employer, husband or boyfriend.
Abortion providers and many women's organizations have long opposed state efforts to delay abortions or require the distribution of certain information beforehand. Such measures can intimidate or frighten women, opponents said.
Opponents of the Indiana law pointed to research in Mississippi and Utah that showed abortion rates dropped by about 10 percent after those states required similar in-person counseling. That does not necessarily mean women opted to have their babies, because a significant number traveled out of state to have an abortion, lawyers for the Indiana clinics wrote.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the in-person counseling rule constitutional last year. The law does not create too great a burden for women, in part because it would waive the requirement in a medical emergency.
The case is A Woman's Choice-East Side Women's Clinic v. Newman, 02-935.
Ah, the horror of keeping some babies out of the abortuaries.
Very bad precedent.
The article was written by LYING SWINE.
Spoken like someone that is already born.
What's that supposed to mean? The court did consider them, and turned down the appeal because such "requirements" do not stop any woman who wants an abortion from having one.
48 days ago, my wife delivered twins that were premature by 11 weeks. These babies were about 3 and a 1/3 lbs each. At that age, they are just beyond the point where they could be legally aborted, barely into the third trimester. Either twin could put their hand into my size 13-1/2 wedding band.
The twins were not the earliest kids in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The baby in the Isolette (which is basically a crib with a plexiglas shell to keep out germs and to stabilize air temperature) was just over 1 pound.
Fifteen years ago, my twins probably would have been delivered, and then passed on. Five years ago, the technology was barely there to rescue the one pounder.
Now, right now my twins have rights as living people. They have since come home, now around 6 lbs. Our "neighbor" has living rights as a living person, even though he is still on life support. What I can't fathom is that now that is he outside, in the "cold cruel world", he is safer legally than if he were on the inside of someone's uterus.
48 days ago, when they put the ventilator on my second twin, she cried, and she struggled. It was obvious that she had an opinion, and she didn't like being on the ventilator. Who could blame her?
Please consider whether or not that "fetus", "baby", "etc", is truly just another part of a woman's body. My direct evidence from my own twins disagrees with that supposition.
I wish you a good day.
Also... from the article:
which can be difficult for any woman who would have trouble explaining her absence to an employer, husband or boyfriend.
Yes, let's be sure and divide families and society and SEXES further by NOT forcing a woman to INFORM her spouse or boyfriend that she is carrying his child. How progressive.
My wife just underwent surgery to correct her epilepsy (7 weeks seizure free!!!!) so maybe I'll be able to talk her into having another little one.
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.