Supreme Court Upholds Parental Notification Law

Posted on January 18, 2006

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a lower court was wrong to strike down New Hampshire’s parental notification law.

In a unanimous decision written by retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the justices let the abortion restriction stand.

The case, Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, challenged a New Hampshire law requiring girls under 18 to get a parent’s consent before having an abortion.

As Cybercast News Service reported earlier, two key questions in the case are whether a child can objectively make life-and-death medical decisions under the stress of an unintended pregnancy; and whether she can provide sufficient details of her medical history to protect her health.

But the court did not rule on the central issues, including whether the law placed an “undue burden” on women. Instead, the justices simply said the lower court went too far in blocking the law.

O’Connor’s ruling said the courts, in this particular case, “chose the most blunt remedy” and did not need to invalidate the New Hampshire law “wholesale.”

An appeals court must now reconsider the law, wire reports said.

This was the first abortion case to come before Chief Justice John Roberts; and the first abortion case the court has taken up in five years.

Ruling applauded

The American Center for Law and Justice, which filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the New Hampshire case, said the justices “got it right.”

“The unanimous decision by the high court underscores the fact that parents have a critical role to play in the health and well being of their children — especially when considering an abortion,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.

“While the ruling is very narrow in scope, the fact is that the New Hampshire parental notification law — and others like it — can survive a constitutional challenge.”

The pro-life group National Right to Life called the ruling a victory for parents and girls.

“There is no abortion procedure that can be performed so quickly that there is not enough time to make a short phone call to a minor girl’s parents,” said Mary Spaulding Balch, state legislative director of NRL.

“It is outrageous for pro-abortion activists to try to prevent parents from even knowing that an abortion is being performed on their minor daughter,” said Balch. “It is during times like these that girls need their parents most.”

A solid decision. I found it interesting how others worded their headlines. Supreme Court Steers Clear of First Abortion Case in 5 Years. Yes, I know, they didn’t rule on the issue itself, but they sure damn set a precedent that these kind of decisions can be decided by the States. The issues that the pro-abortion folks said they were most worried about, the woman’s health was addressed however.

But Jennifer Dalven, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who had argued on behalf of the abortion clinics, said today’s ruling was also good for her side. “It tells politicians that they must include protections for women’s health and safety when they pass abortion laws,” Ms. Dalven told The Associated Press.

“Only a few applications of New Hampshire’s parental notification statute would present a constitutional problem,” O’Connor said. “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 unconstitutonal application” — that is, the absence of permission for an immediate abortion when needed “to avert serious and often irreversible damage” to the health of pregnant minors.

» Filed Under ACLU, About Us, News

Trackback URL

Comments

2 Responses to “Supreme Court Upholds Parental Notification Law”

Where's my Haldol? on January 19th, 2006 12:03 am

The SCOTUS didn’t rule on this issue at all, they simply bounced it back to the circuit court. Funny how those liberal activist justices y’all like to complain about so much didn’t uphold the appeal, eh?

Personally I’d be more in favor of a straightforward consent requirement than this notification crap. I’d certainly want to know if my daughter was having surgery of any kind. Simple notifcation, however, nothing more than an intimidationtactic; in N.H. and similar states, these girls can still seek abortions regardless of what their parents think.

Finally, don’t be a tool. There are often valid maternal health concerns where young pregnant women are involved, and to dismiss these with an offhanded comment about “pro-abortion folks” (who exist only in your mind, of course) undermines your entire post (what there is of it to undermine, anyway).
Peter Bella on January 20th, 2006 12:17 am

If your minor daughter wanted liposuction, she would need your permission. If she wanted a face lift, collagen injections, or BOTOX, she would need your permission. These are all elective procedures.

Abortion, except in the case of the rare case where child birth is detrimental to a woman, is elective surgery. It is invasive surgery; as such, has potential dangers. Minors should need parental consent.