| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"osprey" |
| Date: |
30 Nov 2005 10:17:42 PM |
| Object: |
Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
2 hours agoUPDATED 1 HOUR 20 MINUTES AGO
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with a New Hampshire
law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy,
with no hint the justices were ready for a dramatic retreat on abortion
rights under their new chief.
The court is dealing with its first abortion case in five years, as well as
the first in the brief tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts.
The case does not challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that declared
abortion a fundamental constitutional right, and the justices seemed to be
seeking a compromise that would avoid breaking new ground.
Several said the law was flawed, because it 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.
At the same time, the court appeared unhappy with lower court decisions that
blocked the law from being enforced at all.
"This case doesn't involve an emergency situation," Roberts said.
The stakes are significant since the ruling could signal where the high
court is headed under Roberts and after the retirement of Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor.
Abortion was a prominent subject in Roberts' confirmation hearings and has
emerged as a major issue in President Bush's nomination of appeals court
Judge Samuel Alito to replace O'Connor, who has been the swing vote in
support of abortion rights.
Protesters demonstrated outside _ singing, chanting and praying _ and the
argument inside the court was at times contentious, too, with justices
talking over each other and over the lawyers.
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte struggled to field sharp
questions on why state lawmakers had made an exception to allow abortions
when a young mother's life _ but not her health _ was in danger. The court
has held that abortion restrictions should include a health exception.
Doctors would fear being prosecuted or sued if they performed an abortion on
a severely sick minor who did not want to notify a parent, several justices
said.
"That's the real problem here for the doctor who's on the line," said
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The law allows a judge to waive the requirement, and Justice Antonin Scalia
said: "It takes 30 seconds to place a phone call."
"It seems to me that the bypass procedure can go a long way toward saving
this statute," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.
Tracking down a judge and making the case for a waiver could take too long,
said Jennifer Dalven, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union
who argued on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
"For women in some emergencies, every minute is critical. Every minute puts
them at risk of losing their future fertility and of major organ damage,"
she said. "I don't think saving a statute is worth putting a teen's health
at risk."
If Alito is confirmed by the Senate early next year his vote could be needed
to break a tie in the case, although the justices may find a consensus in
resolving the appeal without a landmark decision. For example, they could
tell the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to review the matter
again and issue a more limited ruling.
A Senate vote is planned for January on Alito, who is expected to be more
receptive to abortion restrictions than O'Connor.
When Alito worked for the Reagan administration, he criticized Roe v. Wade.
In a memo released by the National Archives on Wednesday, Alito said that
because a reversal of Roe was unlikely, the Reagan administration should
instead try to persuade justices to accept state limits on abortions.
The New Hampshire case is being closely watched by states that require
minors to tell a parent or get permission before having an abortion. The
justices were told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19,
including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.
The Bush administration is backing New Hampshire, and Solicitor General Paul
Clement told the court that "it's literally a one in 1,000 possibility that
there's going to be an emergency" and problem under the law.
The court is considering whether the 2003 New Hampshire law puts 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.
The case was one of two dealing with abortion at the court on Wednesday. In
a second, the justices considered whether federal extortion and racketeering
laws can be used to sue abortion clinic demonstrators.
Another major case awaiting justices is the Bush administration's appeal of
a lower court ruling that struck down a federal ban on a procedure that
critics call "partial birth" abortions. The federal law has no health
exception.
The high court agreed to allow news organizations to air an audio recording
of the court's argument in the New Hampshire case, giving the public away
from the court its first chance to hear the new chief justice on the bench.
Cameras are not allowed in the court.
Roberts, 50, replaced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in
September after a yearlong fight with cancer.
The justices agreed to hear the New Hampshire case before Rehnquist's death
_ and before O'Connor surprised colleagues with news that she was stepping
down.
O'Connor was not particularly active in the hour-long argument, and her vote
will count only if she is still on the court when the ruling is made. She
suggested there might be a way to deal with the lack of a health exception,
without blocking the law entirely.
The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.
http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2005/11/30/274240.html
.
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
01 Dec 2005 12:06:46 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:TuCdnYMQQ9jG5BPenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
2 hours agoUPDATED 1 HOUR 20 MINUTES AGO
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with a New Hampshire
law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her
pregnancy,
with no hint the justices were ready for a dramatic retreat on abortion
rights under their new chief.
The court is dealing with its first abortion case in five years, as well
as
the first in the brief tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts.
The case does not challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that declared
abortion a fundamental constitutional right, and the justices seemed to be
seeking a compromise that would avoid breaking new ground.
Several said the law was flawed, because it 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.
At the same time, the court appeared unhappy with lower court decisions
that
blocked the law from being enforced at all.
"This case doesn't involve an emergency situation," Roberts said.
The stakes are significant since the ruling could signal where the high
court is headed under Roberts and after the retirement of Justice Sandra
Day
O'Connor.
Abortion was a prominent subject in Roberts' confirmation hearings and has
emerged as a major issue in President Bush's nomination of appeals court
Judge Samuel Alito to replace O'Connor, who has been the swing vote in
support of abortion rights.
Protesters demonstrated outside _ singing, chanting and praying _ and the
argument inside the court was at times contentious, too, with justices
talking over each other and over the lawyers.
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte struggled to field sharp
questions on why state lawmakers had made an exception to allow abortions
when a young mother's life _ but not her health _ was in danger. The court
has held that abortion restrictions should include a health exception.
Doctors would fear being prosecuted or sued if they performed an abortion
on
a severely sick minor who did not want to notify a parent, several
justices
said.
"That's the real problem here for the doctor who's on the line," said
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The law allows a judge to waive the requirement, and Justice Antonin
Scalia
said: "It takes 30 seconds to place a phone call."
"It seems to me that the bypass procedure can go a long way toward saving
this statute," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.
Tracking down a judge and making the case for a waiver could take too
long,
said Jennifer Dalven, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union
who argued on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
"For women in some emergencies, every minute is critical. Every minute
puts
them at risk of losing their future fertility and of major organ damage,"
she said. "I don't think saving a statute is worth putting a teen's health
at risk."
If Alito is confirmed by the Senate early next year his vote could be
needed
to break a tie in the case, although the justices may find a consensus in
resolving the appeal without a landmark decision. For example, they could
tell the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to review the matter
again and issue a more limited ruling.
A Senate vote is planned for January on Alito, who is expected to be more
receptive to abortion restrictions than O'Connor.
When Alito worked for the Reagan administration, he criticized Roe v.
Wade.
In a memo released by the National Archives on Wednesday, Alito said that
because a reversal of Roe was unlikely, the Reagan administration should
instead try to persuade justices to accept state limits on abortions.
The New Hampshire case is being closely watched by states that require
minors to tell a parent or get permission before having an abortion. The
justices were told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19,
including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.
The Bush administration is backing New Hampshire, and Solicitor General
Paul
Clement told the court that "it's literally a one in 1,000 possibility
that
there's going to be an emergency" and problem under the law.
The court is considering whether the 2003 New Hampshire law puts 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.
The case was one of two dealing with abortion at the court on Wednesday.
In
a second, the justices considered whether federal extortion and
racketeering
laws can be used to sue abortion clinic demonstrators.
Another major case awaiting justices is the Bush administration's appeal
of
a lower court ruling that struck down a federal ban on a procedure that
critics call "partial birth" abortions. The federal law has no health
exception.
The high court agreed to allow news organizations to air an audio
recording
of the court's argument in the New Hampshire case, giving the public away
from the court its first chance to hear the new chief justice on the
bench.
Cameras are not allowed in the court.
Roberts, 50, replaced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in
September after a yearlong fight with cancer.
The justices agreed to hear the New Hampshire case before Rehnquist's
death
_ and before O'Connor surprised colleagues with news that she was stepping
down.
O'Connor was not particularly active in the hour-long argument, and her
vote
will count only if she is still on the court when the ruling is made. She
suggested there might be a way to deal with the lack of a health
exception,
without blocking the law entirely.
The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.
http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2005/11/30/274240.html
Common sense should dictate that a parent has every right to know when their
teenage daughter has been raped. No minor should ever be the one to
determine life or death for the pre-born child; this is a decision that the
parents should be involved in making.
These pro-choicers seem to feel that the right to free speech and the right
to assemble onlt applies to those involved with liberal causes. Pro-life
advocates have the whipping boys of the LLL.
Partial-birth abortion is homocide, no debate there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
01 Dec 2005 07:35:30 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:v8GdnU-SVJgWDhPenZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:TuCdnYMQQ9jG5BPenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
2 hours agoUPDATED 1 HOUR 20 MINUTES AGO
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with a New Hampshire
law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her
pregnancy,
with no hint the justices were ready for a dramatic retreat on abortion
rights under their new chief.
The court is dealing with its first abortion case in five years, as well
as
the first in the brief tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts.
The case does not challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that declared
abortion a fundamental constitutional right, and the justices seemed to
be
seeking a compromise that would avoid breaking new ground.
Several said the law was flawed, because it 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.
At the same time, the court appeared unhappy with lower court decisions
that
blocked the law from being enforced at all.
"This case doesn't involve an emergency situation," Roberts said.
The stakes are significant since the ruling could signal where the high
court is headed under Roberts and after the retirement of Justice Sandra
Day
O'Connor.
Abortion was a prominent subject in Roberts' confirmation hearings and
has
emerged as a major issue in President Bush's nomination of appeals court
Judge Samuel Alito to replace O'Connor, who has been the swing vote in
support of abortion rights.
Protesters demonstrated outside _ singing, chanting and praying _ and the
argument inside the court was at times contentious, too, with justices
talking over each other and over the lawyers.
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte struggled to field sharp
questions on why state lawmakers had made an exception to allow abortions
when a young mother's life _ but not her health _ was in danger. The
court
has held that abortion restrictions should include a health exception.
Doctors would fear being prosecuted or sued if they performed an abortion
on
a severely sick minor who did not want to notify a parent, several
justices
said.
"That's the real problem here for the doctor who's on the line," said
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The law allows a judge to waive the requirement, and Justice Antonin
Scalia
said: "It takes 30 seconds to place a phone call."
"It seems to me that the bypass procedure can go a long way toward saving
this statute," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.
Tracking down a judge and making the case for a waiver could take too
long,
said Jennifer Dalven, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union
who argued on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.
"For women in some emergencies, every minute is critical. Every minute
puts
them at risk of losing their future fertility and of major organ damage,"
she said. "I don't think saving a statute is worth putting a teen's
health
at risk."
If Alito is confirmed by the Senate early next year his vote could be
needed
to break a tie in the case, although the justices may find a consensus in
resolving the appeal without a landmark decision. For example, they could
tell the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to review the matter
again and issue a more limited ruling.
A Senate vote is planned for January on Alito, who is expected to be more
receptive to abortion restrictions than O'Connor.
When Alito worked for the Reagan administration, he criticized Roe v.
Wade.
In a memo released by the National Archives on Wednesday, Alito said that
because a reversal of Roe was unlikely, the Reagan administration should
instead try to persuade justices to accept state limits on abortions.
The New Hampshire case is being closely watched by states that require
minors to tell a parent or get permission before having an abortion. The
justices were told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19,
including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.
The Bush administration is backing New Hampshire, and Solicitor General
Paul
Clement told the court that "it's literally a one in 1,000 possibility
that
there's going to be an emergency" and problem under the law.
The court is considering whether the 2003 New Hampshire law puts 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.
The case was one of two dealing with abortion at the court on Wednesday.
In
a second, the justices considered whether federal extortion and
racketeering
laws can be used to sue abortion clinic demonstrators.
Another major case awaiting justices is the Bush administration's appeal
of
a lower court ruling that struck down a federal ban on a procedure that
critics call "partial birth" abortions. The federal law has no health
exception.
The high court agreed to allow news organizations to air an audio
recording
of the court's argument in the New Hampshire case, giving the public away
from the court its first chance to hear the new chief justice on the
bench.
Cameras are not allowed in the court.
Roberts, 50, replaced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in
September after a yearlong fight with cancer.
The justices agreed to hear the New Hampshire case before Rehnquist's
death
_ and before O'Connor surprised colleagues with news that she was
stepping
down.
O'Connor was not particularly active in the hour-long argument, and her
vote
will count only if she is still on the court when the ruling is made. She
suggested there might be a way to deal with the lack of a health
exception,
without blocking the law entirely.
The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.
http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2005/11/30/274240.html
Common sense should dictate that a parent has every right to know when
their
teenage daughter has been raped.
I agree 100%
No minor should ever be the one to
determine life or death for the pre-born child; this is a decision that
the
parents should be involved in making.
Exactly. Not only that, but with any other type of surgical procedure a
parent and/or guardian must be notified and sign the papers.
Why should abortion be any different?
A parent and/or guardian could probably sue and win if a doctor performed a
surgical procedure on their minor, if they were not notified.
These pro-choicers seem to feel that the right to free speech and the
right
to assemble onlt applies to those involved with liberal causes. Pro-life
advocates have the whipping boys of the LLL.
Partial-birth abortion is homocide, no debate there.
I agree.
Notice something else about these pro-abortionist.
A few weeks ago Howard Dean made the statement that he is more pro-life than
pro-choice. What that meant was, he doesn't like the term pro-choice
because it appears that he wouldn't be pro-life. He said everyone should be
pro-life, because it means we favor life.
It's the first time Howard Dean said something that I totally agreed with.
Which is why I ask these moron's if they are pro-life.
Wouldn't you think they would want to follow one of their fellow wackos?
They normally goosestep.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
01 Dec 2005 09:26:45 AM |
|
|
osprey lied:
Wouldn't
"One last note: I am very surprised at your reaction especially after
just a few short months ago I provided a copy of my DD214 Right in
box 18...1st line it says... SERVED 2 AUG 90 TO 1 OCT 94 IN SUPPORT
OF OPERATION DESERT SHIELD/STORM and in box 13 NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE
MEDAL Funny how you have selective memory, why? Yes, I served in combat
during Desert Storm."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/38f5de5691243868?dmode=source&hl=en
"Fine, if you want to play on words...no I was not in actual "combat" "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/db12fe6b6ec66a35?dmode=source&hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
01 Dec 2005 11:17:58 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
No minor should ever be the one to
determine life or death for the pre-born child; this is a decision that
the parents should be involved in making.
Exactly. Not only that, but with any other type of surgical procedure a
parent and/or guardian must be notified and sign the papers.
Why should abortion be any different?
I agree 100%. The language in this law should be changed from
"abortion" to "any medical procedure". And it should apply to boys as
well as girls. But definitely keep the provision requiring the parents
be notified 48 hours in advance. That way, if little junior requires
surgery (or any medical procedure for that matter) the parents have 48
hours to think about it before the doctor can proceed. The parents
will have plenty of time to be extra sure they are doing the right
thing (can't be too careful when it comes to your kids!). And if it's
an emergency, no big deal. The doctor can appear before a judge and
plead their case. Doctors typically have plenty of extra time for
legal matters like this. Besides, with all of the medical training
most judges have, I'm sure they will be to come to a swift decision
that fairly balances the health of the child with the goals of the
religious right to control people lives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
01 Dec 2005 11:21:44 AM |
|
|
<sfoy@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:1133457478.121218.123310@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
osprey wrote:
No minor should ever be the one to
determine life or death for the pre-born child; this is a decision that
the parents should be involved in making.
Exactly. Not only that, but with any other type of surgical procedure a
parent and/or guardian must be notified and sign the papers.
Why should abortion be any different?
I agree 100%. The language in this law should be changed from
"abortion" to "any medical procedure". And it should apply to boys as
well as girls.
I totally agree.
But definitely keep the provision requiring the parents
be notified 48 hours in advance. That way, if little junior requires
surgery (or any medical procedure for that matter) the parents have 48
hours to think about it before the doctor can proceed. The parents
will have plenty of time to be extra sure they are doing the right
thing (can't be too careful when it comes to your kids!).
You got that right.
And if it's
an emergency, no big deal.
That's why we have Cobra laws...there are times during medical emergencys
when doctors are required to act.
The doctor can appear before a judge and
plead their case. Doctors typically have plenty of extra time for
legal matters like this. Besides, with all of the medical training
most judges have, I'm sure they will be to come to a swift decision
that fairly balances the health of the child with the goals of the
religious right to control people lives.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
01 Dec 2005 12:54:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
But definitely keep the provision requiring the parents
be notified 48 hours in advance.
The current case before the court does not challenge parental
notification. Casey has firmly established the states may require
parental notification. The case questions whether the lack of a health
exception makes the law unconstitutional.
And if it's
an emergency, no big deal. The doctor can appear before a judge and
plead their case. Doctors typically have plenty of extra time for
legal matters like this. Besides, with all of the medical training
most judges have, I'm sure they will be to come to a swift decision.
If it is an emergency, how can there be "plenty of extra time" to
appear before a judge who somehow can render a "swift decision"?
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
02 Dec 2005 08:55:44 AM |
|
|
Are you for real??? Don't you know sarcasm when you see it? I was
trying to illustrate the idiocy of this law. Why should a doctor be
forced to appear before a judge to get approval to perfrom any medical
procedure? Who is the best person to decide what medical procedure is
in the best interest of a patient: the doctor treating the patient or
a judge with no medical training? Why do law-makers continually try to
tie the hands of doctors by forcing the legal system into their
profession. What percentage of doctors are in favor of legislation
like this? Probably close to zero. But that's okay, I'm sure the
law-makers know better how doctors should conduct their patient care
(more sarcasm in case you didn't get it). And why does no one mention
the 48 hour waiting period? Why should the government force a doctor
to wait 48 hours before performing a medical procedure? That is a
clear infringement of personal freedom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josh Rosenbluth" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
02 Dec 2005 02:30:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Are you for real??? Don't you know sarcasm when you see it?
Sorry. I read your post too quickly. We are in agreement.
Josh Rosenbluth
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
30 Nov 2005 11:04:39 PM |
|
|
In article <TuCdnYMQQ9jG5BPenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
2 hours agoUPDATED 1 HOUR 20 MINUTES AGO
Osprey, the "Guard", doesn't understand U.S. Copyright law. He
violates the law, just like those he "guards."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
30 Nov 2005 11:07:00 PM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
Justices
"One last note: I am very surprised at your reaction especially after
just a few short months ago I provided a copy of my DD214 Right in
box 18...1st line it says... SERVED 2 AUG 90 TO 1 OCT 94 IN SUPPORT
OF OPERATION DESERT SHIELD/STORM and in box 13 NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE
MEDAL Funny how you have selective memory, why? Yes, I served in combat
during Desert Storm."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/38f5de5691243868?dmode=source&hl=en
"Fine, if you want to play on words...no I was not in actual "combat" "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/db12fe6b6ec66a35?dmode=source&hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law |
01 Dec 2005 02:54:17 AM |
|
|
osprey wrote:
Are you hoping that more girls die--perhaps yours (so you no longer
have child support liabilities)?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
