home

High Court to Hear Abortion Case

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:54:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Supreme Court agreed to hear only one case today. It involves parental notification rights in abortion cases. Scotus blog reports:

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a long-unsettled issue of abortion law: the standard to be used in judging the constitutionality of a restriction on a women's right to end a pregnancy. The question is whether such a restriction is to be upheld if there is any circumstance in which it could be applied constitutionally. The Court for some time has not followed that approach in abortion cases, but has never explicitly repudiated it. The working standard the Court has applied is whether a restriction, as written, would put a burden on the abortion rights of a significant number of women.

The issue arises in the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (docket 04-1144). The case also raises the question whether a parental consent law for minors' abortions must contain a health exception. At issue is such a law enacted in New Hampshire in 2003.

NARAL has issued a press release that should be online shortly stating that the decision "underscores the threat of President Bush to Roe v. Wade" and reminding us that "the constitutional protections of Roe v. Wade hang in the balance of a 5-4 court."

< Supreme Court Declines Mexican Death Row Cases | Nuclear Option: Get Your Fingers Limber >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    High Court to Hear Abortion Case | 70 comments (70 topical)
    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#45)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Damn, he's got me there...Not.
    The Abortion Battle, to white conservatives, is about White Supremacy.
    Perhaps that's lie #5 in this thread alone. Can you really be that gullible? That has got to be one of the most moronic things I've read since coming here. Well, top 25 anyway. Do you also agree that a child is property until around the age of 3?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Actually, Patrick, Blagh's just pointing out what WHITES are saying on the internet... Did you read the links and Google it yourself or are you being typically lazy in disagreeing with something in which you've spent O hours researching? As for 3 year old children, stick to pointing out Blagh's statements- everyone else can speak for themselves...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#47)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Again, with the sweeping generalization. That's what "whites" are saying on the interent or what white suprememcists are saying? I would argue that they don't speak for me even if we happen to coincidently find ourselves on the same side of an issue for obviously different reasons. Yes, I looked at the link and laughed. You link to propaganda, then use it on your site as some kind of proof. Like I said moronic. This thread isn't about pro or con abortion, it's about a parent's right to know. You've shown me absolutely nothing except your blind ignorance towards the issue.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#48)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    You still haven't answered the question about whether or not you consider a 3 year old as a human or property. I would never have thought I needed to ask that question of anyone, but if Marty's views are typical of those who think like the two of you do, then I do need to ask.
    As for 3 year old children, stick to pointing out Blagh's statements- everyone else can speak for themselves...
    I'm simply asking you if you agree? What? I can't do that?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:52:56 PM EST
    Sure you can, but if you read any of Blagh's other comments, you'd know it's a dumb-ass question not worth answering, but Blagh'll answer it for you... Blagh believes personally that life begins at viability, which means if the fetus could reasonably be expected to live outside the womb, that it is now protected by society...or should be... That doesn't mean that a 16-week fetus who survives means all abortions are illegal...the question is "reasonable viability" and how we set that standard...by averages, of course... Just like you disconnect black babies from incubators in Texas against the mother's wishes, because the law of averages tells you little Sambo is a dead duck... So there you have it...breech-abortion isn't abortion, it's murder in Blagh's eyes...a girl having an abortion in her 1st trimester is her bloody business, unless you can show how you have the right to interfere with her reproductive processes... Good enough for you? Does that clear things up? And Patrick, since you're full of questions, why don't YOU answer this: Why are the anti-abortionists so slaveringly willing to break laws and even kill doctors to protect unborn people when "born people" are being massacred as we speak, some of which are in Iraq having dinner when a cruise missile introduces itself to their abode? Why doesn't that elicit the same hand-wringing, or the starving buggers in Africa, or the genocide in the Sudan? Why don't you stop worrying about fetuses and start worrying about the people aleady here...Why? Waiting....

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#37)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:17 PM EST
    V2Marty: "life begins when you become a sentient being at about age 3." Lemme guess- you don't have kids. Do you value the life of a human adult over the life of an unthinking adult?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:17 PM EST
    You mean a repug? Or a handicapped person? That is a hard question... does this adult have memories? Brain dead adults (Schavio) are not people, but masses of meat. A handicapped individual is human though, and afforded all right a human gets.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#39)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    I think I hear a clock in the other room.. Cookoo Cookoo Cookoo. I've seen marty and Blahg align themselves together in other threads. With opposition like this, I'm feeling pretty comfortable.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    i align mysel with logic and morality as i percieve them, Blag just happens to have a keen moral compass and quite a bit of logic up his sleeve.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#41)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    And your morality allows you to dispose of a child up til the age of 3? Yeah, I'll oppose you with every breath in my body. And to think some accuse Bush of being like Hitler. Words can't express how much your statements offend logic and morality.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#42)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    deleted. Name calling is not allowed here.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    I do not really advocate that anyone "dispose of a child up til the age of 3" but, I am trying to make a point that the argument over abortion is based entirely on the idea you are killing a person. If your definition of a person is tied to a "soul" created at conception, while mine is tied to one's conciousness (which manifests much later), we end up seeing the issue in a much different light.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    Blaghdaddy's been doing some soul-searching this morning and has come to the conclusion that many before him have reached: The Abortion Battle, to white conservatives, is about White Supremacy. Don't believe Blagh? It's all in black and white right here.... And now we all know...right George?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#2)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    One of the arguments in favor of notification laws has been to stop older men from hiding their abuse of young women. To this argument, I think opponents of notification laws could adopt the position of conservatives who oppose "hate crime" laws: the crime itself is already punishable under existing law, therefore we don't need to create new law to control it.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    Quaker, I don't get it. Notification laws would only make it harder for that girl to get help. If the abuser, rapist, molester, is in the house, is a parent or other guardian, notification becomes the worst nightmare, and gives the impregnator info he wouldn't otherwise have. Peace.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#4)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    except that in those cases, and with court oversight, parental notification could be waived, by law. If a 16 year old is mature enough to make that decision without parental consent they are mature enough to face the adult justice system, no? Why not?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#5)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    When confronted with the facts, what advocates for parental notification laws love most is evasion. The most crucial fact is that such notification implies that the parent has the right to force a child to come to term with an unwanted pregnancy. What this means, oh constitutional termites of the Right, is the grandparent's wishes supercede those of the mother. And that's wrong no matter how you slice it. No woman, of whatever age, should ever be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her wishes. Not by her mother, not by her father, and certainly not by the lamebrains in government.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#6)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    If a 16-year old is mature enough to make that decision, why not let them just make it without having to justify it any further? This is just another obstacle. If she were an adult, she might have to face a waiting period (you know, to reconsider).

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    The most crucial fact is that such notification implies that the parent has the right to force a child to come to term with an unwanted pregnancy.
    Do parents have rights to control their minor children. That is the question. Take abortion out of the equation.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    "What this means, oh constitutional termites of the Right, is the grandparent's wishes supercede those of the mother." Actually, Glanton, I think the that the termites think that if the law says that a child is not mature enough to make decisions like those involved in voting, driving, drinking, etc., then they also aren't mature enough to make decisions about life and death of others.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#9)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Dadler, Obviously those who make this argument (and I'm NOT one of them, BTW) don't envision the problem male living in the same house. Instead, they're assuming that a non-family member seduces and impregnates the underage woman, then carries her off to have an abortion to hide his action. Having sex with an underage woman is already a crime. The argument goes that criminalizing the abortion will make it more difficult for a man to hide the evidence of statutory rape.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Also, I'm no lawyer, but minors can get legally emancipated from their parents. Seems like a reasonable course of action for someone considering such a drastic course of action.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#11)
    by swingvote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Do we really want a system where a 12 year old can walk in to an abortion clinic and have a serious medical procedure performed without the knowledge of her parents? If so, what possible limits are left to parental responsibility?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#12)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Patrick: I think we can all agree pregnancy is a special case. It aint like asking to spend the night with a friend, or even to borrow the car for a few days. sarcastic: More of the same for you. The drinking age, voting, etc. are interesting analogies but none of them match up to the awesome phenomenon of and ramifications involved with pregnancy. I mean, let's stay on Earth for a few minutes. Are we really supposed to see a parallel between your examples and physically forcing a woman to carry her pregnancy to term? In the name of basic decency, mom must trump the grandparents 10 times out of 10.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    "none of them match up to the awesome phenomenon of and ramifications involved with pregnancy." Glanton, to my eyes, you've just made my point.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#14)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Dadler, It's about parental control. You can package it any way you want so it doesn't offend your sense of right and wrong, but it offends mine. No one if forcing anyone to do anything, parental notification says nothing about parental consent (Which I'M all for as well), but an abortion clinic has to be forced to ensure that a minor's parents have been notifed. Come on, the local emergency room won't treat a minor child for a bloody nose, stitch a laceration or give anything but emergency life saving treatment without parental notification & consent. Are you saying this standard should be realxed for abortions? Give me a break. Your the poster child for the what's wrong with the pro-choice movement.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#15)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    The previous post was to Glanton, not Dadler, sorry for the confusion. and of course your is supposed to be you're.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#16)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Well, sarcastic, if you think the grandparent has the right to force such an awesome thing upon the mother, than I guess it would make your point. Clearly this is how Patrick feels. But then again, both of you would have all women barred from the right to a safe and legal abortion, so I wonder how sersiously one can take you here? Is it not simply an opportunity to chip away at Roe, by whatever means necessary? Indeed, Patrick talks about control, and there's a reason for that. Parental control is one thing, property ownership quite another. I wonder if you can see the difference? At any rate, a minor is not nor should ever be, a piece of property. Nor is any human being. Such cavalier advocacy of one human being's right to deprive another's reproductive rights smacks of slavedriving to me, plain and simple.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    Yep, Glanton, we're not going to agree.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Such cavalier advocacy of one human being's right to deprive another's reproductive rights smacks of slavedriving to me, plain and simple.
    The government deprives us of reproductive rights all the time. It is illegal for a man to impregnate his sister, or for an adult woman to impregnate herself by a minor boy. It isn't slavery, it's the government working for the public good. Allowing parents' to override a child's medical decisions about body piercings, wisdom tooth removal, and birth control smacks of slavery just as strongly. Which is to say, not very. (My examples might be legal by artificial insemination... not sure what that would mean for my argument)

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Uh, Roy... The laws are against having sex with one's sister, and against a woman having sex with a minor...but nice try...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#20)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    If a twelve year old is mature enough to decide to have an abortion without her parents consent, can she be tried as an adult if she decides to kills a classmate? It seems funny that schools will not give asprin without parents consent, but an abortion, nah, no need to bother mom or dad. Glanton: You are refering to Grandparents and moms. Obviously you consider the product of an abortion to be human.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Don't be foolish, Coyote... Only conservatives would talk of trying children as adults while meantime denying them voting, driving, drinking and all other privileges common to adults...unless it's their own child, then the lawyers go into overtime, right? First of all, a child is not "deciding to have an abortion." A child is not legally able to give consent. Hence, whether this child wanted to have sex or not, she was raped. So, having a raped child with child, you would advocate compounding the tragedy by forcing her to carry the pregancy to term? You guys are very compassionate when you're dealing with kids other than your own...NOT...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#22)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Blahgdaddy,
    The laws are against having sex with one's sister, and against a woman having sex with a minor...
    Yes, banning (or at least interfering with) practical impregnation as a deliberate side-effect. I think that shows that we allow our government to restrict reproductive rights, especially with children. It only "smacks of slavedriving" (glanton's words) when it doesn't mesh with one's agenda. There's still plenty of room to argue whether a specific policy is a good idea, of course. Personally I support parental notification, perhaps even after the procedure (since I assume it's safer the earlier it's done), but not requiring consent. Wile E. Coyote,
    It seems funny that schools will not give asprin without parents consent, but an abortion, nah, no need to bother mom or dad.
    The point you're deliberately ignoring is that witholding asprin won't have life-altering consequences, whereas witholding an abortion does.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#23)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    So here's a question for notification law supporters: What constitutes valid proof of age? What precautions are clinics required to take to detect frauds? If a 17-year-old presents fake ID, is the clinic liable for damages? Does the doctor face criminal liability? Your answers will tell us who this law seeks to control.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    So we tell children not to have sex or they'll get pregnant, and if they wind up pregant through statutory rape, we make them have the baby? So, if we tell a child not to drink poison, what do we do when the little bugger chugs down a bottle of aspirin- sit him down and make him "take his medicine?" You people are too barbaric for words. You'll put a minor to death... You'll make them carry out a pregnancy after being raped... You'll let millions of Africans die of AIDS because you feel contraception is immoral... Blaghdaddy's just waiting for you all to f*#k off and stop meddling in others' lives...you've done enough, and thanks....

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#25)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    What constitutes valid proof of age? What precautions are clinics required to take to detect frauds? If a 17-year-old presents fake ID, is the clinic liable for damages? Does the doctor face criminal liability?
    I dunno, a driver's license from a state that doesn't just issue them to illegal aliens, official state ID, military ID, something that's credible and then we don't have issues with your second two questions as long as the doctor or clinic makes a good faith effort.
    So we tell children not to have sex or they'll get pregnant, and if they wind up pregant through statutory rape, we make them have the baby?
    So much half truths, misstatements and outright lies, I don't know where to begin. F*ck off yourself. In my opinion, parental notification or court supervised medical treatment. If you don't want to tell your parents (and you're an unemancipated minor) you will need court approval prior to receiving an abortion. If that makes me a monster in the eys of some here, I can certainly live with that.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#26)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    "I dunno, a driver's license from a state that doesn't just issue them to illegal aliens,"
    Whunh? You'd have the standard of proof vary according to the policies of the state where the woman lives? So what happens if one of your dreaded illegal aliens shows up with a valid driver's license that says it's her 18th birthday. Do you allow her to have her choice or do you force her to produce another offspring you can try to deport?

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Patrick...be careful who you call a liar...you conservatives have cornered the market on that... Blagh's lying to say that it is statutory rape to have sex with a girl under 18? Is he? Blagh's lying to say that conservatives advocate the execution of minors? (Didn't the Supreme Court just tell the Bush gov't that it can't anymore? If they weren't advocating it, what were they doing in court?) Blagh's lying to say that the Pope and the Bush gov't are responsible for denying Africa responsible birth control? Where's the lie or the half-truth in ANY of those statments, Patrick? If you're going to call someone a liar, make sure you have YOUR f*#king facts straight, buddy...you're the liar...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#28)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    be careful who you call a liar...
    I'm a little wary to wade into the cross-fire, but it did strike me as fishy to equate providing aid -- just not the most effective -- with "letting millions of Africans die of AIDS". Also, I don't think anybody is "denying Africa responsible birth control", they just aren't giving it away or promoting it.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Uh, what do you call with-holding life-saving contraception because of moral debates? For Christ's sake, who made conservatives the world's babysitter, and why can't they give everyone else the same liberty they scream for themselves? Why? Why? Why? You people love to split hairs when you're trying to bamboozle people, and then you accuse others of splitting hairs...who's splitting hairs while millions of Africans die of AIDS? Liberal? Not.... And you would call not giving aid after a tsunami humane too, wouldn't you? It's not "letting them die," it's just saying "f*#k you," right? You bloody hypocrites... Terri Schiavo required changing laws up and down the nation, but what are a few million jigaboos in a place white people destroyed over four hundred years? Ask the Republicans...they've got all the answers...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Blaghdad is the new soccerdad.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    What does that mean? Good night everyone...

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#32)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Uh, what do you call with-holding life-saving contraception because of moral debates?
    In this context, I call it half-assedness, since it doesn't work as well promoting and distributing condoms. But the Republican idea of aid is actually good advice: stay abstinent. You seem to be blaming the Republicans for the choices of those who don't follow the advice. Maybe some of the educational material was of crappy quality, like the "you can catch AIDS from tears" screw-up in the states. That'd be different.
    For Christ's sake, who made conservatives the world's babysitter...
    Don't liberals favor more foreign aid spending? Which is more babysitter-like? Maybe your point is that if the U.S. is going to baby-sit at all, we should follow the more effective liberal approach, which I'd agree with.
    You people love to split hairs when you're trying to bamboozle people, and then you accuse others of splitting hairs...
    I think that's true, but, you did ask for your half-truths to be pointed out.
    And you would call not giving aid after a tsunami humane too, wouldn't you?
    Are you equating $350,000,000 of aid, plus sending military assets to directly help, with "not giving aid", and still maintaining that you're utterly honest? Yes, I call the Republican tsunami response human. We met our basic obligation. We could have done more, but so could virtually every person, company, or government.

    Re: High Court to Hear Abortion Case (none / 0) (#33)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:55:42 PM EST
    Throwing a temper tantrum doesn't make your positions any more valid. The posters above me did a fine job of making the points you requested. Like I said, you don't agree with me and hate me for my opinion and for calling you on yours (as fine an example of liberal tolerence as ever, and unfortunately what we've come to expect), so what.