NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Though the case is relatively convoluted, the Supreme Court seems to be leaning toward discounting the New Hampshire law requiring parental notification for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is the lack of a medical emergency provision.


For New Court, Abortion Case Takes Old Path (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/politics/politicsspecial1/01scotus.html?th&emc=th)


By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: December 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - Well before the argument in a New Hampshire abortion case was over, the question that had drawn the crowds to the Supreme Court on a crisp Wednesday morning had an answer. No, abortion law was not about to undergo a major change in the hands of the new Roberts court, at least not yet.

The justices appeared to be in broad agreement on two propositions: that laws regulating teenagers' access to abortion must make allowances for medical emergencies; and that the New Hampshire law, requiring notice to one parent and a 48-hour waiting period, failed to do so.

The only dispute was over how to fix the problem, and even as to that question, there was some evidence of a consensus in the making.

The hundreds of spectators in the courtroom, and the countless more who were able to listen, thanks to the court's unusually speedy release of the audiotape, were treated to an intense and lively session during which the justices appeared at times almost to be thinking out loud about how to proceed.

Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared inclined to send the case back to the federal appeals court that had declared the law unenforceable in all respects, and to instruct that court to render a narrower ruling. Such a ruling would permit the law to take effect except when a doctor had certified that an immediate abortion - without either notifying a parent or seeking approval from a judge, an option known as a judicial bypass - was necessary to preserve a girl's health.

Addressing Jennifer Dalven, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union representing the abortion clinics that brought the successful challenge to the law, Justice Stephen G. Breyer tried out his solution.

"I guess it would satisfy you to say that this statute cannot be enforced in any circumstance in which a physician certifies in good faith that he believes an immediate abortion is necessary for the health of the mother," Justice Breyer said. As much musing as questioning, he continued:

"All you're looking to is the state of mind of the physician. Now, the problem that I think we'd see with that is you'd then be writing into the law the broadest possible definition of what that health exception means. So, I'm not sure the New Hampshire Legislature would have wanted to do it, and I'm not sure the other side would like to do it. But looking at it from your point of view, do you have any objection to it?"

Ms. Dalven replied, "That would solve the constitutional problem here," but she also contended that the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had taken the preferable course in blocking enforcement of the law in all possible applications.

"I think there is real cause for concern about rewriting this law for New Hampshire," she said. "If this court said that that's the proper course, I believe that the federal judiciary will be faced with rewriting abortion law after abortion law after abortion law."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor also explored the prospect of sending the case back. "Is there any objection by you to remanding this thing to let it be more narrowly focused?" Justice O'Connor asked Ms. Dalven.

Musing aloud, Justice Ginsburg asked: "Why wouldn't it be entirely adequate to protect what you're concerned about to say this New Hampshire statute is unconstitutional to the extent that it fails to provide an exception for situations where there's imminent danger to health? And then all those imminent danger to health situations would be left unregulated, the statute doesn't reach them, but nonemergency cases would continue to be governed by the statute. In other words, why wasn't that the appropriate judgment for the First Circuit to have entered in this case, to say the statute's fine for nonemergency cases, but for emergency cases there is effectively no law?"

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. made it clear that he thought the appeals court's ruling had been too broad, but was less clear about how to remedy the problem. He appeared to be suggesting that the law, which the New Hampshire Legislature passed in 2003 but which has never taken effect, should be challenged in an entirely new lawsuit, one brought by doctors who could face criminal and civil liability for performing emergency abortions.

"What is wrong with a pre-enforcement challenge by physicians?" the chief justice asked Ms. Dalven. "Why should you be able to challenge the act as a whole if your objection is so narrowly focused?"

Later, he elaborated: "Presumably the litigation would be very similar to what we've seen in this case, in which a doctor is saying well, you do need an immediate medical exception; others saying that the judicial bypass adequately addresses the concerns. But it would be focused on the provision that is causing you concern, rather than the statute as a whole."

Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte of New Hampshire, who brought the appeal of the lower court's ruling, asserted in her argument that under New Hampshire's general health law, a doctor performing an emergency abortion would have a legal defense in any event, based on the state's general law regarding medical practice. Ms. Ayotte said she was prepared to issue a formal opinion to that effect if the occasion arose.

The attorney general's position left Justice Ginsburg unsatisfied. "That's the real problem here for the doctor who's on the line," she said. "I think a lawyer who cares about his client would say 'defense' is not what we want, what we want is that there is no claim; not that you have to put up a defense and maybe the attorney general will give us a letter saying that we come under that defense."

Justice John Paul Stevens reminded Ms. Ayotte that the sponsors of the parental notice law in the New Hampshire Legislature had rejected including a medical exception. "When you have legislative history that suggests that the Legislature considered this very defense and rejected it in the statute, would then that give some concern?"

Ms. Ayotte replied that while "there certainly was some indication that the Legislature did not want a general health exception," sponsors did not intend to leave pregnant teenagers unprotected in emergencies.

Of the 43 states that require parental involvement in a teenager's abortion decision, New Hampshire is one of only five not to include an explicit health exception in the text of the statute. All the laws do make exceptions for life-threatening medical emergencies.

Ms. Ayotte is in an unusual position in this case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, No. 04-1144. She is an appointee of New Hampshire's former governor, Craig R. Benson, a Republican who supported the law. Gov. John H. Lynch, a Democrat who defeated Mr. Benson for re-election last November, opposes the law and filed a brief asking the justices to overturn it, leaving Ms. Ayotte to pursue the appeal on her own.

Justice O'Connor is in an unusual position of her own. As long as she remains on the court, she participates in the arguments and votes on cases. But her vote will count only if the court issues the decision while she is still there, a prospect that is not out of the question in this case given the justices' apparent interest in a narrow ruling. Under the Senate Judiciary Committee's schedule of hearings for Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., the nominee to succeed her, Justice O'Connor will serve at least through January.

Solicitor General Paul D. Clement argued for the Bush administration on Ms. Ayotte's behalf. He said that when there was "literally a one-in-a-thousand possibility that there's going to be an emergency," a court should not invalidate a statute with 999 valid applications.

The court heard arguments in another abortion-related case on Wednesday, revisiting for the third time the question of whether the federal racketeering law can be used in a private lawsuit to bar violent protests at abortion clinics. Based on the arguments in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, No. 04-1244, it appeared likely that the justices would overturn a federal appeals court decision that has kept the 19-year-old case alive.

I think abortion is horrible...think about what would have happend if Marry had an abortion.

I listened to the New Hampshire AG's oral arguments. She got skewered on the issue of health exemptions.

I think abortion is horrible...think about what would have happend if Marry had an abortion.
There would be a lot more Jews (like me!)

I think abortion is horrible...think about what would have happend if Marry had an abortion.
No Christians. So what's the problem?

There would be a lot more Jews (like me!)
LOL!!! :D

I think abortion is horrible...think about what would have happend if Marry had an abortion.
I wouldn't have to hear asinine statements like that.

Hmmm...parental consent is a bad idea. While I personally would hate my (hypothetical) daughter to have an abortion behind my back, I imagine it would be worse for a girl who would be beaten/thrown out of home because they got pregnant.

COMMENTARY: Though the case is relatively convoluted, the Supreme Court seems to be leaning toward discounting the New Hampshire law requiring parental notification for a wide variety of reasons, not the least of which is the lack of a medical emergency provision.


Interestingly, MSN's article on the same topic claimed that not only did the statute have a medical emergency clause, but that the Supremes were leaning toward "saving the statute," that is, upholding it. Weird.

Interestingly, MSN's article on the same topic claimed that not only did the statute have a medical emergency clause, but that the Supremes were leaning toward "saving the statute," that is, upholding it. Weird.
I was wondering about the need for an abortion to save a mother's life. Statistically, how often is this needed? Are we talking about 1 in every 100,000 pregnancies, every 1,000,000, or ever billion, or so? If the significance is down in the noise, we would be better served worrying about pre-natal care and other well-known hazards to the child.

And I don't think an emergency room is going to let a child die because they can't get parental approval to operate.

I was wondering about the need for an abortion to save a mother's life. Statistically, how often is this needed? Are we talking about 1 in every 100,000 pregnancies, every 1,000,000, or ever billion, or so? If the significance is down in the noise, we would be better served worrying about pre-natal care and other well-known hazards to the child.

And I don't think an emergency room is going to let a child die because they can't get parental approval to operate.

That's basically what Scalia was saying, based on the article I read yesterday.. however, that article seems to have taken a different view of the likely outcome of the case than this article here does..

I think abortion is horrible...think about what would have happend if Marry had an abortion.
I think abortion is great...think about what would have happened if Hitler's mother had an abortion.

I think abortion is horrible...think about what would have happend if Marry had an abortion.

Think what would happen if hitler's mother had had an abortion.

Flawed logic.

Interestingly, MSN's article on the same topic claimed that not only did the statute have a medical emergency clause,

If it said this, it was incorrect. The statute provides an exception in the case that the minor's life is in immediate danger. It does not provide an exception for medical emergencies in which her health is in danger, but her life is in no eminent danger - in which she could sustain major organ damage, could become infertile, could have a stroke, etc.

but that the Supremes were leaning toward "saving the statute," that is, upholding it. Weird.

This is not at all inconsistent with Eutrusca's argument, except that you have made the silly assumption that "saving the statute" equates to completely upholding it. The court seems to be leaning towards saving the statute, as in, not getting rid of it completely. However, pretty much every member of the court has expressed concern with the lack of exception for these cases, and so they want to preserve the statute in such a way that it would not apply to these cases, or would be altered such that it would make an exception for them.


I was wondering about the need for an abortion to save a mother's life.

This case is not addressing that issue. It is looking at cases in which the mother's health is in danger, but her life is not in eminent danger.

Statistically, how often is this needed? Are we talking about 1 in every 100,000 pregnancies, every 1,000,000, or ever billion, or so? If the significance is down in the noise, we would be better served worrying about pre-natal care and other well-known hazards to the child.

I think we should worry about all possible hazards, and not make laws that increase their likelihood of doing harm.

And I don't think an emergency room is going to let a child die because they can't get parental approval to operate.

Again, we aren't talking about letting someone die. We are talking about cases in which great harm will be done by not getting an abortion, but the girl will most likely live. We are talking about cases in which a girl may live, but never be able to have children, or a case in which she may sustain major organ damage, but won't die immediately and can most likely be treated.

I think the decision between, "This girl will never have children," and "I might go to jail and lose my ability to work," would be rather difficult, don't you? So maybe we shouldn't force anyone to make that choice.

I think abortion is great...think about what would have happened if Hitler's mother had an abortion.

Now this is just eerie. Same post, same exact timing.

Now this is just eerie. Same post, same exact timing.
Indeed.

I was wondering about the need for an abortion to save a mother's life. Statistically, how often is this needed? Are we talking about 1 in every 100,000 pregnancies, every 1,000,000, or ever billion, or so? If the significance is down in the noise, we would be better served worrying about pre-natal care and other well-known hazards to the child.

And I don't think an emergency room is going to let a child die because they can't get parental approval to operate.
Here's the problem with that argument. The brief from the State of New Hampshire in the cases says that "constitutional rights" protect women who need an abortion for their health from parental notification laws. However, the New Hampshire law as written makes no health exception. Therefore, the statute prevents women from waiving parental consent if their health would be endangered by the wait required for it, which is in violation of what the State of New Hampshire has defined as a constitutional right. Supreme Court precedent on what to with laws that contradict the Constitution is (relatively) straightforward. These details all came out during the oral arguments of the NH AG.

And, tens of thousands of women per year need abortions for health reasons (http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-abortion-legal.xml)

I listened to the New Hampshire AG's oral arguments. She got skewered on the issue of health exemptions.
I know. Wasn't her argument something along the lines of "doctors will be protected" by some other New Hampshire law?

There would be a lot more Jews (like me!)
Um ... Jesus was a Jew, yes? :D

I think we should worry about all possible hazards, and not make laws that increase their likelihood of doing harm.

That's not possible in real life. You need to make choices. Are you going to protect against 99.9 percent of all hazards? Is 90 percent okay. What's the difference in cost to get that extra 10 percent.

In this case, we are talking about the difference between a 'frivolous' abortion and a medically recommended one. What's the ratio? Are we talking about opening the door to a hundred elective abortions for every one that will keep the mother healthy?

If the likelihood of doing harm is very remote, but the benefit of reducing elective abortions by minors is very great, it's probably a good idea to make the abortion hard to get.

Interestingly, MSN's article on the same topic claimed that not only did the statute have a medical emergency clause, but that the Supremes were leaning toward "saving the statute," that is, upholding it. Weird.
Hmm. Well, they BOTH can't be right ... can they??? :confused:

I know. Wasn't her argument something along the lines of "doctors will be protected" by some other New Hampshire law?
Oh, it was even worse than that. "My office is going to issue a ruling saying that health exemptions were OK." Like the State AG can override a State Congress, let alone a Supreme Court decision upholding the law as is, as it's not like the Supremes will say "This law is constitutional contingent on the AG issuing a ruling."

Um ... Jesus was a Jew, yes?
Sure, but Christian missionaries have taken away so many, not to mention the initial defections...Pure religious utilitarianism :p

That's not possible in real life. You need to make choices. Are you going to protect against 99.9 percent of all hazards? Is 90 percent okay. What's the difference in cost to get that extra 10 percent.

In this case, we are talking about the difference between a 'frivolous' abortion and a medically recommended one. What's the ratio? Are we talking about opening the door to a hundred elective abortions for every one that will keep the mother healthy?

If the likelihood of doing harm is very remote, but the benefit of reducing elective abortions by minors is very great, it's probably a good idea to make the abortion hard to get.
Except that there's no constitutional interpretation protecting fetuses against "frivolous abortions," but there is constitutional law protecting a woman's right to choose abortion if she feels her health is threatened. Remember, we're in the sphere of law here. Policymaking need not apply.

I think the decision between, "This girl will never have children," and "I might go to jail and lose my ability to work," would be rather difficult, don't you? So maybe we shouldn't force anyone to make that choice.
Good point. And thank you for the clarification on the different approaches in the two articles. I didn't see that.

In this case, we are talking about the difference between a 'frivolous' abortion and a medically recommended one. What's the ratio? Are we talking about opening the door to a hundred elective abortions for every one that will keep the mother healthy?

If the likelihood of doing harm is very remote, but the benefit of reducing elective abortions by minors is very great, it's probably a good idea to make the abortion hard to get.
If we're talking about teenagers seeking abortions, the likelihood for harm is significantly greater than with adults. I really don't see how there's any benefit in reducing elective abortions by minors (well, at least doing so by increasing the number of teenage pregnancies that go to term anyways... reducing the number of teenage pregnancies is good) but yeah, what evidence do you have that it's a good thing to reducte the options of teenage girls who find themselves pregnant? What evidence do you have it's in the girl's best interests to carry a pregnancy to term at a young age? Because oddly enough, all information I've come accross states the exact opposite.

Here's the problem with that argument. The brief from the State of New Hampshire in the cases says that "constitutional rights" protect women who need an abortion for their health from parental notification laws. However, the New Hampshire law as written makes no health exception. Therefore, the statute prevents women from waiving parental consent if their health would be endangered by the wait required for it, which is in violation of what the State of New Hampshire has defined as a constitutional right. Supreme Court precedent on what to with laws that contradict the Constitution is (relatively) straightforward. These details all came out during the oral arguments of the NH AG.
Like I said: convoluted. ;)

Here's the problem with that argument. The brief from the State of New Hampshire in the cases says that "constitutional rights" protect women who need an abortion for their health from parental notification laws. However, the New Hampshire law as written makes no health exception. Therefore, the statute prevents women from waiving parental consent if their health would be endangered by the wait required for it, which is in violation of what the State of New Hampshire has defined as a constitutional right. Supreme Court precedent on what to with laws that contradict the Constitution is (relatively) straightforward. These details all came out during the oral arguments of the NH AG.

And, tens of thousands of women per year need abortions for health reasons (http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-abortion-legal.xml)
It wasn't as much of an argument as it was a question. The Planned Parenthood link did point out some conditions that an abortion will benefit. I didn't read that it was 'tens of thousands' a year, but simply tens of thousands that benefitted from legal abortions. No matter, that's the information I was curious about.

I am certain that Planned Parenthood isn't without it's opponents, though.

I know. Wasn't her argument something along the lines of "doctors will be protected" by some other New Hampshire law?

She argued that there is a NH law that allows doctors to use as a defense (in other words, in a courtroom in which they have already been charged with a crime), the idea that they have weighed "competing harms" and found that their actions caused the least harm.

However, there are many doctors out there who aren't going to risk getting charged at all, because a defense that they are "allowed" to use isn't necessarily going to work. And then there is the issue that a truly unscrupulous doctor could overuse it, claiming in every case that he had weighed competing harms and found that abortion was necessary, even if the competing harm was something that was not an eminent danger to health.

That's not possible in real life.

It is possible to change or strike down a law that you know for a fact increases the chances of harm.

You need to make choices.

Yes, and that choice should be to do the least harm possible.

In this case, we are talking about the difference between a 'frivolous' abortion and a medically recommended one. What's the ratio? Are we talking about opening the door to a hundred elective abortions for every one that will keep the mother healthy?

No, we aren't. We are talking about adding an exception for cases that pose an eminent threat to the health of the mother - cases in which a young girl comes in and the doctor's immediate recommendation is abortion, as the girl will be greatly harmed without one. We are basically putting the power to save lives and to keep people healthy in the hands of medical health professionals.

If the likelihood of doing harm is very remote, but the benefit of reducing elective abortions by minors is very great, it's probably a good idea to make the abortion hard to get.

First of all, it still isn't hard to get. The girl's parents just have to be notified.

What we are talking about here is the difference between a girl losing her ability to have children because a doctor couldn't get in touch with her parents or a judge in time, or having an emergency abortion without their permission and being able to have children later in life. We are talking about the difference between a girl sustaining major damage to her kidneys because the doctor had to wait to notify the parents/get permission from a judge, and a girl not taking that damage because she gets an emergency abortion.

In this case, we are talking about the difference between a 'frivolous' abortion and a medically recommended one. What's the ratio? Are we talking about opening the door to a hundred elective abortions for every one that will keep the mother healthy?


Who is going to decide when the time is right? I can introduce you to my redneck relatives that will tell you there is never a good time. After all it's God's will.

Consider this? How many girls will go behind their parents backs? How many of those have nasty parents?

Oh, it was even worse than that. "My office is going to issue a ruling saying that health exemptions were OK." Like the State AG can override a State Congress, let alone a Supreme Court decision upholding the law as is, as it's not like the Supremes will say "This law is constitutional contingent on the AG issuing a ruling."

Sure, but Christian missionaries have taken away so many, not to mention the initial defections...Pure religious utilitarianism :p
Heh! Whatever you say, man! :D

I didn't realize that she was trying to justify the law by offering a ruling! Sheesh! LOL!

Sure, but Christian missionaries have taken away so many, not to mention the initial defections...Pure religious utilitarianism :p

Hmmm?

Would we have had the Crusades?

What evidence do you have it's in the girl's best interests to carry a pregnancy to term at a young age? Because oddly enough, all information I've come accross states the exact opposite.
I can't find any either. Strange thing that, what? :)

It wasn't as much of an argument as it was a question. The Planned Parenthood link did point out some conditions that an abortion will benefit. I didn't read that it was 'tens of thousands' a year, but simply tens of thousands that benefitted from legal abortions. No matter, that's the information I was curious about.

I am certain that Planned Parenthood isn't without it's opponents, though.
There are very few statistics on this issue. I did several google searches and nothing of relevance came up, so I resorted to the Planned Parenthood website. I'd like to see statistics saying that there aren't tens of thousands women who suffer from diseases that force them to have abortions (which is what I read the planned parenthood article to say).

Heh! Whatever you say, man! :D

I didn't realize that she was trying to justify the law by offering a ruling! Sheesh! LOL!
The chutzpah, right?

I think one interesting question would be: By what margin did this law pass the legislature in the first place?

If it passed by a decent margin, all of this wrangling over "saving the statute" wouldn't really be necessary. The court could essentially say, "This law is unconstitutional and thus struck down. If you want it to be constitutional, you need to include this exception." The legislature could then craft a law that met the requirements, pass it, and no problem. Because of this, the whole case leaves me wondering if it (a) passed by a very, very slim margin or (b) NH has some weird restrictions on lawmaking that would mean it would take a very long time to get through.

Hmmm?

Would we have had the Crusades?
Naah. We haven't been big fans of the large populations with swords ever since the Romans invaded Israel back in the day.

The chutzpah, right?
Yeah ... holy Matza Balls, Batman! :D

Who is going to decide when the time is right? I can introduce you to my redneck relatives that will tell you there is never a good time. After all it's God's will.

Consider this? How many girls will go behind their parents backs? How many of those have nasty parents?
I'm not hard over on either side of this issue. How a teenage girl acts is a direct result of how she was raised. We raised three and this issue never came up. Neither did drugs or drinking. How many will deceive their parents? Probably all that can. After all, it's not like they asked permission to get pregnant, is it?

I was mostly curious about whether abortions saving lives was fact or fiction. After the first one, asking questions here is like eating potato chips.

I think one interesting question would be: By what margin did this law pass the legislature in the first place?

If it passed by a decent margin, all of this wrangling over "saving the statute" wouldn't really be necessary. The court could essentially say, "This law is unconstitutional and thus struck down. If you want it to be constitutional, you need to include this exception." The legislature could then craft a law that met the requirements, pass it, and no problem. Because of this, the whole case leaves me wondering if it (a) passed by a very, very slim margin or (b) NH has some weird restrictions on lawmaking that would mean it would take a very long time to get through.
Looks like it very barely passed both the House and the Senate in NH. (http://webarchive.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=55170)

There are very few statistics on this issue. I did several google searches and nothing of relevance came up, so I resorted to the Planned Parenthood website. I'd like to see statistics saying that there aren't tens of thousands women who suffer from diseases that force them to have abortions (which is what I read the planned parenthood article to say).
I'm not an MD, but the conditions all seem reasonable. When my wife was pregnant with the twins, she was tested for all sorts of things and the kids did put quite a strain on her. I can see how someone that's not healthy would be endangered by a difficult pregnancy.

How a teenage girl acts is a direct result of how she was raised.
Not always, unfortunately.

BTW ... my congratulations on doing such a great job as parental units! :D

I'm not hard over on either side of this issue. How a teenage girl acts is a direct result of how she was raised. We raised three and this issue never came up. Neither did drugs or drinking. How many will deceive their parents? Probably all that can. After all, it's not like they asked permission to get pregnant, is it?

I was mostly curious about whether abortions saving lives was fact or fiction. After the first one, asking questions here is like eating potato chips.
So you really think that the way people are raised decides everything about their personality? That nothing is determined by genetics? It seems to me like there's a multiplicity of factors that influence behavior.

I'm not an MD, but the conditions all seem reasonable. When my wife was pregnant with the twins, she was tested for all sorts of things and the kids did put quite a strain on her. I can see how someone that's not healthy would be endangered by a difficult pregnancy.
When I said "I'd like to see," I meant that I didn't believe they existed. My sister also just had a baby about 4 months ago, and the amount of things she couldn't do (for someone in previously perfect health) was ridiculous. I can only imagine what it's like for someone who has a debilitating diseases.

It's a womans right to choose if she wants to have an abortion or not, even if Roe V Wade is overturned (the GOP's fondest Wish) it wouldn't make abortion illegal.

It would return the right to legalize or ban abortion back to the states.

Which means that there would be a BIG boost to the Tourist economies of Democrat States as Bus loads of Red-Staters go to the "Elitist Coastal States" to get abortions.

I can see new state slogans right now...

Massachusetts: "Where the Country was Born... But your Baby wasn't!"
California: "China's Population Control Laws have NOTHING on us!"
New York: "Aborting Babies since the dawn of time!"

So you really think that the way people are raised decides everything about their personality? That nothing is determined by genetics? It seems to me like there's a multiplicity of factors that influence behavior.
Yes. That's my learned opinion based on 64 accumulated years of raising kids. Add another 30, or so years of watching others do the same and I've collected a little empirical evidence.

Genetics are going to have a minor affect on a child because they will be different from each other. But that's not bad. A child's values, though, are going to be set by the way they are raised and the way they see their parents behave.

I was wondering about the need for an abortion to save a mother's life. Statistically, how often is this needed? Are we talking about 1 in every 100,000 pregnancies, every 1,000,000, or ever billion, or so? If the significance is down in the noise, we would be better served worrying about pre-natal care and other well-known hazards to the child.

And I don't think an emergency room is going to let a child die because they can't get parental approval to operate.

The exception that the Court is concerned about is not just where the life of the mother is threatened, but also whereh the health of the mother is at stake.

And, are you saying emergency rooms should be free to ignore the law if it is upheld?

I think one interesting question would be: By what margin did this law pass the legislature in the first place?

If it passed by a decent margin, all of this wrangling over "saving the statute" wouldn't really be necessary. The court could essentially say, "This law is unconstitutional and thus struck down. If you want it to be constitutional, you need to include this exception." The legislature could then craft a law that met the requirements, pass it, and no problem. Because of this, the whole case leaves me wondering if it (a) passed by a very, very slim margin or (b) NH has some weird restrictions on lawmaking that would mean it would take a very long time to get through.

The law was deliberately passed to challenge the constitutional boundaries.

New Hampshire has a long history of pushing the envelope in terms of trying to ban or place burdens on abortion.

That's not possible in real life. You need to make choices. Are you going to protect against 99.9 percent of all hazards? Is 90 percent okay. What's the difference in cost to get that extra 10 percent.

In this case, we are talking about the difference between a 'frivolous' abortion and a medically recommended one. What's the ratio? Are we talking about opening the door to a hundred elective abortions for every one that will keep the mother healthy?

If the likelihood of doing harm is very remote, but the benefit of reducing elective abortions by minors is very great, it's probably a good idea to make the abortion hard to get.

If the purpose of the law is to make an abortion hard to get, it automatically should fail the undue burden test.

Why do you assume women have "frivolous" abortions? That is an insult to the women of this country.

It's a womans right to choose if she wants to have an abortion or not, even if Roe V Wade is overturned (the GOP's fondest Wish) it wouldn't make abortion illegal.

It would return the right to legalize or ban abortion back to the states.


Which would still be a devastating blow to women's rights. poor women in rural areas would have to travel 100s of miles, take multiple days off of work, etc. Mississippi only has one abortion clinic in the entire state, and it is next to impossible for underprivledged women to recieve abortions, even if they want them.

Access is equally as important as the right itself.

Here's the problem with that argument. The brief from the State of New Hampshire in the cases says that "constitutional rights" protect women who need an abortion for their health from parental notification laws. However, the New Hampshire law as written makes no health exception. Therefore, the statute prevents women from waiving parental consent if their health would be endangered by the wait required for it, which is in violation of what the State of New Hampshire has defined as a constitutional right. Supreme Court precedent on what to with laws that contradict the Constitution is (relatively) straightforward. These details all came out during the oral arguments of the NH AG.

And, tens of thousands of women per year need abortions for health reasons (http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/pub-abortion-legal.xml)


Well stated.

I was wondering about the need for an abortion to save a mother's life. Statistically, how often is this needed? Are we talking about 1 in every 100,000 pregnancies, every 1,000,000, or ever billion, or so? If the significance is down in the noise, we would be better served worrying about pre-natal care and other well-known hazards to the child.

And I don't think an emergency room is going to let a child die because they can't get parental approval to operate.

Even the most conservative of estimates say that 3% of all abortions are necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

That adds up to tens of thousands of abortions every year. About 40,000 in the year 2000.

Well stated.
Thanks!