home

High Court Sidesteps Abortion Issue

The Supreme Court ruled today in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. (opinion here in pdf). In the opinion, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court made it clear they were not writing new law on abortion. At issue was the New Hampshire parental notification law which the lower court had struck down as unconstitutional.

Rather than decide the issue, the Supreme Court said there were problems with the law and sent it back to the lower courts.

ScotusBlog opines that the decision could be viewed as limiting abortion rights:

If, in fact, that is the way the decision is applied by lower courts in this and other cases, it could amount to a narrowing of abortion rights. That is because it would amount as a legal matter to less reliance upon an individual doctor's professional judgment in individual cases, especially when the abortion option is not considered in a truly emergency situation, but is only deemed medically advisable for a given patient.

As to the decision itself, Scotusblog reports:

Justices, in a rare unanimous abortion ruling, agreed that the New Hampshire law could make it too hard for some ill minors to get an abortion, but at the same time they were hesitant about stepping in to fix the 2003 statute. They told a lower court to reconsider whether the entire law is unconstitutional.

....Declaring that pregnant teenagers sometimes need an immediate abortion to avert serious health problems, the Court said the New Hampshire law must be read to allow that when it occurs, which it suggested would be "in a very small percentage of cases." If the law can be interpreted to make that exception, and still be in keeping with what the state legislature intended, the Court indicated, the remainder of the law may remain intact. The state law, as written, makes an exception for teenagers where an abortion is necessary to save the pregnant girl's life, but it does not make a health exception.

The ACLU predicted the lower courts would again strike down the law. From the AP article above:

Civil rights groups predicted that the appeals court would again strike down the law. "It tells politicians that they must include protections for women's health and safety when they pass abortion laws," said Jennifer Dalven, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

By the time the case reaches the Supreme Court again, Alito will be on the bench. How would he rule?

< GOP Pitches "New" Congressional Ethics Proposal | U.S., France Reject Nuclear Talks With Iran >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: High Court Sidesteps Abortion Issue (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    How WILL Alito rule is more like it. Damn that WILL is depressing. But I suspect they'll redraft the law, go through this whole process again, and it'll end up on the books. And we'll know that we've got the court THEY want.

    Re: High Court Sidesteps Abortion Issue (none / 0) (#2)
    by BigTex on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 10:52:41 AM EST
    Looks like the Court is moving to an overbreatdh type of analysis that is used in other areas of constitutional rights. This action brings the Court to more of a middle ground that allows the states to make decisions as long as minimal federal protections.

    Re: High Court Sidesteps Abortion Issue (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    Today is Roe v Wade 33 aniversary. Bush has declared today "National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2006". Are we surprised at the "coincidence"? georgia10 has the story over at kos.