Court to decide abortion parental notice law

[Greed]

Court to decide abortion parental notice law
By James Vicini 2 hours, 45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday agreed for the first time in five years to decide an abortion law, one of the most contentious issues for the court since its landmark ruling over 30 years ago that made abortion legal.

The high court said it would review a New Hampshire law that requires parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion and will take up the politically charged case during its next term that begins in October.

Arguments in the case are expected to be held in December, with a decision likely in the first half of next year.

Since the 1973 Roe V Wade ruling, opponents of abortion have fought hard against it, sometimes in violent protests, while those who support abortion rights vigorously oppose any moves by Congress, the White House or state legislatures to dilute such rights.

The Supreme Court last ruled on an abortion law in 2000, when it struck down by a 5-4 vote a Nebraska law that banned one type of abortion.

A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court declared the New Hampshire law unconstitutional. The appeals court said it lacked provisions for an exception in the event of a medical emergency.

The law requires that a parent or guardian be notified 48 hours in advance of any abortion on a woman under 18.

The Supreme Court last ruled on such parental notification laws for minors in 1990, when the justices upheld a law that required parental notification before an abortion.

The court in that case also upheld an alternative procedure under which minors may get approval from a judge instead of telling a parent. The New Hampshire law has such a procedure under which a minor can get approval from a judge, instead of notifying her parent or guardian.

New Hampshire officials said in their appeal to the Supreme Court that the law "preserves the health and life of the minor" through the judicial approval procedure and through other state laws.

They also asked the justices to clarify the legal standard when reviewing the constitutionality of abortion laws.

The law had been challenged by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and by others. They said the law was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception to preserve a pregnant minor's health.

"We are surprised and disappointed the Supreme Court has decided to hear this case," said Planned Parenthood Federation of America Interim President Karen Pearl.

"Yet we are confident that this court will reaffirm a woman's right to abortion access. States should never put women's health at risk," she said in a statement.

Supporters of the law welcomed Supreme Court review.

"This is a critical area of the law that needs to be corrected," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. "We are hopeful the high court will determine that parental notification laws enacted by states are proper and constitutional."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050523/pl_nm/usa_court_abortion_dc

 

[Stages]

You know what I wanna know tho? Can a parent of a minor legally make there child get a abortion????????????

 

[Greed]

my personal opinion is they should be able to because its alot of dumb 12 yr olds out there. but i'm no lawyer, so someone else can speak on the reality of the law.

 

[Stages]

my personal opinion is they should be able to because its alot of dumb 12 yr olds out there. but i'm no lawyer, so someone else can speak on the reality of the law.

Yeah I feel the same exact way. A 12 year old can't take care of no baby period. They still a damn baby they self.

 

[Chase Bannon]

my personal opinion is they should be able to because its alot of dumb 12 yr olds out there. but i'm no lawyer, so someone else can speak on the reality of the law.

This is a hard one to answer. I see both sides to this. The only thing that scares me is someone else controling the destiny of someone else's child. I do understand that a typical 12 year old can't raise a child. I may have a fact or an opinion rather that a 12 year old can raise a child.

 

[Fuckallyall]

Court to decide abortion parental notice law
By James Vicini 2 hours, 45 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday agreed for the first time in five years to decide an abortion law, one of the most contentious issues for the court since its landmark ruling over 30 years ago that made abortion legal.

The high court said it would review a New Hampshire law that requires parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion and will take up the politically charged case during its next term that begins in October.

Arguments in the case are expected to be held in December, with a decision likely in the first half of next year.

Since the 1973 Roe V Wade ruling, opponents of abortion have fought hard against it, sometimes in violent protests, while those who support abortion rights vigorously oppose any moves by Congress, the White House or state legislatures to dilute such rights.

The Supreme Court last ruled on an abortion law in 2000, when it struck down by a 5-4 vote a Nebraska law that banned one type of abortion.

A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court declared the New Hampshire law unconstitutional. The appeals court said it lacked provisions for an exception in the event of a medical emergency.

The law requires that a parent or guardian be notified 48 hours in advance of any abortion on a woman under 18.

The Supreme Court last ruled on such parental notification laws for minors in 1990, when the justices upheld a law that required parental notification before an abortion.

The court in that case also upheld an alternative procedure under which minors may get approval from a judge instead of telling a parent. The New Hampshire law has such a procedure under which a minor can get approval from a judge, instead of notifying her parent or guardian.

New Hampshire officials said in their appeal to the Supreme Court that the law "preserves the health and life of the minor" through the judicial approval procedure and through other state laws.

They also asked the justices to clarify the legal standard when reviewing the constitutionality of abortion laws.

The law had been challenged by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and by others. They said the law was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception to preserve a pregnant minor's health.

"We are surprised and disappointed the Supreme Court has decided to hear this case," said Planned Parenthood Federation of America Interim President Karen Pearl.

"Yet we are confident that this court will reaffirm a woman's right to abortion access. States should never put women's health at risk," she said in a statement.

Supporters of the law welcomed Supreme Court review.

"This is a critical area of the law that needs to be corrected," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice. "We are hopeful the high court will determine that parental notification laws enacted by states are proper and constitutional."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050523/pl_nm/usa_court_abortion_dc

With rights come responsibilities, and vice versa. If a parent is responsible for thier child, then they should have the right to determine how that child's body is used. Of course, a good case can be made that a pregnancy on an extremely young child (the 12 year old is a good example), poses an undue risk.

 

[Greed]

Top court reviews abortion notice law

Top court reviews abortion notice law
By James ViciniWed
Nov 30, 2:46 PM ET

The U.S. Supreme Court grappled with its first abortion case in five years on Wednesday, considering whether a parental notification law must provide an exception when the health of an abortion-seeking minor is at risk.

Several justices seemed to search for some middle-ground solution to the case, the first abortion controversy to reach the court under its new chief justice, John Roberts. Abortion has been one of the court's most contentious issues.

A number of justices asked whether the entire law should have been struck down or whether a narrower ruling could have been made that the New Hampshire law does not cover emergency health situations for minors seeking an abortion.

"Why should you be able to challenge the act as a whole if your objection is so narrowly focused?" Roberts asked the attorney who opposed the law.

The case does not involve a challenge to the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that established that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

And it could end up being argued again if the justices are split by a 4-4 vote and cannot get out a decision by the time retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor leaves the court.

O'Connor, who often has cast the decisive vote to strike down abortion restrictions, plans to step down when her replacement is confirmed. Conservative Judge Samuel Alito has been named to replace her, and the Senate is expected to vote on his nomination in January.

O'Connor said the entire law had been invalidated and, like Roberts, questioned whether the case could be narrowed. "Obviously, it's a matter of concern," she said.

The New Hampshire law requires that a parent be notified 48 hours in advance of any abortion for anyone under age 18. It includes an alternative procedure of getting a judge's approval. It provides an exception when the minor's life is in danger, but not for non-life-threatening medical emergencies.

WEEKEND EMERGENCY

Justice Stephen Breyer cited the example of a 15-year-old girl who shows up in the emergency room at 2 a.m. on a weekend and has medical problems that would result in her infertility. She tells the doctor not to notify her parents.

"There's no health exception in the statute," Breyer said, after New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte said the doctor could perform an immediate abortion.

Ayotte argued that it would be a "rare circumstance" when a minor would need an immediate abortion because of a health emergency.

Several justices appeared skeptical when she said that existing New Hampshire law would protect doctors from prosecution in such cases.

In its last abortion decision in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that state abortion laws must provide an exception to protect the pregnant woman's health. It struck down a Nebraska law that banned a type of abortion procedure.

A federal judge and a U.S. appeals court declared the New Hampshire law unconstitutional because it lacked provisions for an exception involving a medical emergency. The law, adopted in 2003, has never been enforced.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top courtroom lawyer, also argued in support of the law. He said the opponents could have brought a narrower challenge.

Jennifer Dalven of the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the law was correctly struck down.

"The unfortunate reality is that some pregnant teens experience emergencies that require an immediate abortion," she said, adding that they could suffer kidney and liver damage, strokes or infertility.

Justice Anthony Kennedy said the alternative procedure of getting approval from a judge might save the law, an issue that has yet to be litigated in the courts. "There can be nurses or attendants that can get the judge on the line," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051130...VNZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[VegasGuy]

Re: Top court reviews abortion notice law

This is a hard one to answer. I see both sides to this

What are the two sides?

-VG

 

[Greed]

Federal Survey Shows Unwanted Births Up

Federal Survey Shows Unwanted Births Up
By MIKE STOBBE, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 57 minutes ago

ATLANTA - More American women are having babies they didn't want, a survey indicates, but federal researchers say they don't know if that means attitudes about abortion are changing.

U.S. women of childbearing age who were surveyed in 2002 revealed that 14 percent of their recent births were unwanted at the time of conception, federal researchers said Monday.

In a similar 1995 survey, only 9 percent were unwanted at the time of conception.

At least one anti-abortion group said the numbers reflect a national "pro-life shift," while others who research reproductive health issues suggested it might mean less access to abortion.

The latest findings are consistent with the falling rate of abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based nonprofit group that researches reproductive health issues.

In 1995, for every 100 pregnancies that ended in abortion or a birth, almost 26 ended in abortion. In 2002, 24 ended in abortion, according to Guttmacher data.

That information seems to be in sync with the federal data released Monday, said Lawrence Finer, Guttmacher's associate director for domestic research.

"The two statistics together suggest — but don't confirm — that a greater percentage of unintended pregnancies resulted in births rather than abortions," Finer said.

The Guttmacher Institute is nearly finished with a study of that question, but Finer declined to discuss the results before they've been published.

Others feel the link is clear-cut.

"I don't think there's any mystery here," said Susan Wills, of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The new data underscores that more women are turning away from abortions, even when it's a pregnancy they don't initially want, said Wills, associate director for education in the Conference's Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities.

"It shows a real pro-life shift," she said.

More women may be carrying pregnancies to term because of increasing availability of ultrasounds and other information that show "it's a baby from an early time," Wills said.

Finer suggested the shift may reflect not only a diminishing demand for abortions, but also a decline in abortion providers, Finer said.

The number of U.S. abortion providers fell steadily in the last decade, from 2,400 in 1992 to 1,800 in 2000. The reason is not clearly known, although increasing government restrictions of abortions have made it increasingly difficult to provide the procedure, Finer said.

The new data on unwanted pregnancies was released by the National Center for Health Statistics, which surveyed 7,643 U.S. women on that and many other family planning and reproductive health questions in 2002 and early 2003. The surveyed women were between the ages of 15 and 44. Researchers only recently completed their analysis of survey questions.

Among the questions: "Right before you became pregnant, did you yourself want to have a baby at any time in the future?"

If they said no, the pregnancy was defined as "unwanted." Pregnancies that occurred sooner than the woman wanted were instead classified as "mistimed," said Anjani Chandra, lead author of the federal study.

Federal researchers don't know if the survey reflects a societal shift in attitudes toward abortion, Chandra added. "People have all kinds of attitudes that don't always reflect what they choose to do. We would never want to guess at people's attitudes based on their behavior," she said.

The proportion of unwanted births at time of conceptions was highest among girls under 18 — 25.4 percent. It was lowest among women 30 to 44 — 10.4 percent.

The proportion was higher for black women (26.2 percent) than for Hispanics (16.8 percent) and whites (10.7 percent).

Here are some other highlights from the new federal report:

• About 42 percent of women in 2002 said they never married, up from 38 percent in 1995.

• About 50 percent of women in 2002 said they had lived with a man in a sexual relationship outside of marriage, up from 41 percent of women in the 1995 survey.

• The overall rate of breastfeeding among recent births rose to 67 percent in 2002, up from 55 percent in 1995. The increase in black families was most pronounced, rising to 47 percent from 25 percent in the early 1990s.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220..._pI2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Fuckallyall]

Thanks for the article. Very interesting.

 

[Greed]

Abortion in the United States: A Snapshot

Abortion in the United States: A Snapshot
by Robert Siegel and Audie Cornish

All Things Considered, January 4, 2006 · We hear historic recordings of three Supreme Court arguments: Roe v. Wade, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania.

Then, Stanley Henshaw of the Alan Guttmacher Institute discusses abortion statistics: how many abortions are performed in the United States each year and what the trends are.

And NPR's Audie Cornish travels to Mississippi, a state with some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. The entire state has only one abortion clinic, and pro-life lobbyists are trying to get even more pro-life legislation passed. 12 min 50 sec

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5126609

 

[QueEx]

Re: Abortion in the United States: A Snapshot

<font size="5"><center>Supreme Court Dodges Major Abortion Ruling</font size></center>

Los Angeles Times
From Associated Press
January 18, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court steered clear of a major ruling on abortion Wednesday, instead giving New Hampshire a chance to save its parental notification law.

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 statute. They told a lower court to reconsider whether the entire law is unconstitutional.

"Making distinctions in a murky constitutional context, or where line-drawing is inherently complex, may call for a 'far more serious invasion of the legislative domain' than we ought to undertake," retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.

The New Hampshire case had been expected to be much closer at the high court.

Instead, justices found consensus on narrow grounds, that a lower court went too far by permanently blocking the law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy.

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.

O'Connor, a key swing voter at the court on abortion rights, last year announced plans to retire and she will step down soon if the Senate confirms nominee Samuel Alito.

Alito was questioned extensively last week during his Senate confirmation hearing about his views on abortion, including the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that declared abortion a fundamental constitutional right. He steadfastly refused to agree with assertions by Democrats that Roe v. Wade is "settled law."

O'Connor, who supports Roe, made clear that the court was not going to break new ground in what may be her final days on the bench. "We do not revisit our abortion precedents today," she wrote in the opening of the brief opinion.

The case returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which had ruled that the law was unconstitutional. The statute requires that a parent be informed 48 hours before a minor child has an abortion but makes no exception for a medical emergency that threatens the youth's health.

O'Connor said "in this case, the courts below chose the most blunt remedy."

The court had been asked to consider whether the 2003 law put an "undue burden" on a woman in choosing to end a pregnancy. O'Connor is an architect of the undue burden standard, and was the deciding vote in the last abortion case five years ago, when the justices ruled that a Nebraska law banning a type of late-term abortion was too burdensome. That law did not have an exception to protect the mother's health.

Justices did not deal directly with that question, although O'Connor wrote: "under our cases it would be unconstitutional to apply the act in a manner that subjects minors to significant health risks."

The opinion, just 10 pages, was a victory for New Hampshire in a case that had been closely watched by other states with restrictions. Justices had been told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19, including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.

"In the case that is before us ... the lower courts need not have invalidated the law wholesale," O'Connor wrote. "Only a few applications of New Hampshire's parental notification statute would present a constitutional problem."

No other justices wrote separately.

Another major case awaiting justices is the Bush administration's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down a federal ban on a late-term procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortions. The federal law has no health exception.

The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...ion_wr,0,3558969.story?coll=la-home-headlines

 

[Greed]

South Dakota passes abortion ban

South Dakota passes abortion ban
Wed Feb 22, 10:06 PM ET

South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.

The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.

"My understanding is we are the first state to truly defy Roe v. Wade," the 1973 high court ruling that granted a constitutional right to abortion, said Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood's South Dakota chapter.

State legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky also have introduced similar measures this year, but South Dakota's legislative calendar means its law is likely to be enacted first.

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.

"If he chooses to sign it, we will be filing a lawsuit in short order to block it," she said after attending the afternoon debate at the state capital in Pierre.

Proponents have said the law was designed for just such a court challenge.

The timing is right, supporters say, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the high court. The two conservatives could pave the way to a decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The high court said on Tuesday it will rule on whether the federal government can ban some abortion procedures, a case that could reveal whether the court reshaped by President George W. Bush will restrict abortion rights.

In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the last direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

The South Dakota law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances over the past three decades.

Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life.

Planned Parenthood operates the sole clinic in South Dakota where roughly 800 abortions are performed each year by doctors from neighboring Minnesota, Looby said.

Two years ago, Rounds vetoed a similar bill, saying it would wipe out existing restrictions on abortion while it was fought in the courts. A rewritten bill lost narrowly in the state Senate.

Some legislators opposed to abortion rights questioned whether it was premature to challenge Roe v. Wade, and said litigation would prove expensive for the sparsely populated state. An anonymous donor has offered $1 million to the state to defray the costs of litigation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060223...FlZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--