| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"LeMod Pol" |
| Date: |
30 Nov 2005 07:16:23 AM |
| Object: |
Supreme Court to Get NH Abortion Rights Case |
Supreme Court to Get Abortion Rights Case
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court will consider its
first abortion rights case under the leadership of
Chief Justice John Roberts, with an unpredictable
outcome because of the court's changing makeup.
The stakes are significant in the dispute over a New
Hampshire law requiring minors to tell a parent before
ending a pregnancy, although the case does not
challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that said
abortion is a fundamental constitutional right.
The outcome is likely to signal where the high court is
headed on an issue that has been emotional and divisive
among the justices and around the country.
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 retiring Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor. O'Connor has been the swing vote in support
of abortion rights.
If Alito is confirmed by the Senate early next year,
his vote could be needed to break a tie in the New
Hampshire case being argued before justices. Abortion
cases generally draw large crowds at the Supreme Court,
but buzz around Wednesday's argument was particularly
frenzied because the court until this fall had no
turnover for 11 years.
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte told
justices in a filing that the law "provides pregnant
minors with the benefit of parental guidance and
assistance in exercising what is undoubtedly a
difficult choice."
O'Connor, a supporter of Roe v. Wade and the first
woman named to the court, is retiring after 24 years
and will likely leave the court before the case is
decided. A Senate vote is planned for January on Alito,
who is expected to be more receptive to abortion
restrictions.
It is unknown how Roberts or Alito would vote on a
rollback of Roe v. Wade.
Meanwhile, the court could use this case to make it
extremely difficult for abortion rights groups to
challenge restrictions, without dealing with the sticky
issue of overturning Roe. At issue is the legal
standard for courts in handling lawsuits over abortion
laws.
The New Hampshire case is being closely watched by the
dozens of states that require minors to tell a parent
or get permission before having an abortion.
Justices were told that 24 states mandate a parent's
approval and 19 states, including New Hampshire, demand
parental notice.
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 justices ruled that
a Nebraska law banning a type of late-term abortion was
too burdensome.
That law, like the one at issue Wednesday, did not have
an exception to protect the mother's health. New
Hampshire argues that exceptions are permitted when the
mother's health is at risk, and that should be enough.
The law requires a parent or guardian be notified when
an abortion is planned for someone under 18, followed
by a 48-hour waiting period. A judge can waive the
requirement.
"In an emergency, a woman needs to go to the hospital
not a courthouse," justices were told in a filing by
Jennifer Dalven, attorney for Planned Parenthood of
Northern New England which challenged the law.
The Supreme Court agreed to allow news organizations to
air audio recording of the court's argument immediately
after its conclusion, giving the public 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 year long
fight with cancer.
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.
The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_ABORTION?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME Ê
Ê
TBO.com is Tampa Bay Online
© 2005 Media General, Inc
.
|
|
| User: "LeMod Pol" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Court to Get NH Abortion Rights Case |
30 Nov 2005 02:11:01 PM |
|
|
X-NO ARCHIVE: YES
Anti-abortion Protesters Argue They Can't Be Sued
By Toni Locy, Ê|Ê November 30, 2005
WASHINGTON --A nearly 20-year-old legal fight over
protests outside abortion clinics returned to the
Supreme Court for the third time Wednesday, with
anti-abortion groups arguing that they should be able
to demonstrate without fear of lawsuits and large
damage awards.
Two years ago, the high court said there was no basis
for using federal extortion and racketeering laws to
ban demonstrations by anti-abortion leader Joseph
Scheidler and others. An appeals court subsequently
ruled a nationwide injunction may be supported on other
legal grounds, and the protesters brought the case back
to the Supreme Court.
Most of the justices did not seem miffed that a lower
court had kept the case alive. But several of them,
including new Chief Justice John Roberts, seemed intent
on finding a way to issue a narrow ruling and avoid
making sweeping changes to existing federal laws
covering extortion and violence.
Justice John Paul Stevens appeared willing to concede
the possibility that the court in 2003 had "overlooked"
four jury findings involving threats of violence by the
protesters. He even joked that the justices may not
have known "what we were doing."
But Justices Antonin Scalia and David Souter questioned
why the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had not
allowed the case to end with the high court's reversal
and lifting of the injunction.
Instead, the appeals court asked a trial judge to
determine whether protesters can be sued for making
threats of violence and whether such an offense must
occur in connection with robbery or extortion.
Justice Stephen Breyer said allowing threats of
violence to be charged as stand-alone crimes -- without
a link to robbery or extortion -- would create a
massive change in federal law covering crime and labor activity.
In an unusual alliance, social activists and unions are
siding with the anti-abortion protesters because they
worry their efforts to change public policy or agitate
for better wages could be targeted by similar lawsuits
and injunctions.
Breyer said such an interpretation would "transform
virtually every threat of violence anywhere in the
United States into a serious federal crime ... and at
least would make a major change in threats of violence
on the picket line."
The legal battle began in 1986, when protests at
abortion clinics were becoming increasingly violent.
The National Organization for Women and two abortion
clinics filed a class-action lawsuit challenging
tactics used by the Pro-Life Action Network to block
women from entering abortion clinics.
NOW's legal strategy was novel at the time, relying on
civil provisions of the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, which was used predominantly
in criminal cases against organized crime. The lawsuit
also relied on the Hobbs Act, a 55-year-old law banning extortion.
In 1998, a Chicago jury found that anti-abortion
protesters had engaged in a pattern of racketeering by
interfering with clinic operations, menacing doctors,
assaulting patients and damaging clinic property.
A federal judge issued a nationwide injunction banning
blockades and other violence that remains in effect
because of the appellate court's action. Protesters
were not barred from praying or engaging in other
peaceful activity on public property near clinics.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that because the
protesters had not extorted money or valuables from the
clinics, there was no basis for a racketeering
violation or the injunction. But the appeals court
asked a trial court to determine whether the jury
verdict on four counts of making threats of violence
could be considered separate crime that could support
the ban.
Lisa Blatt, an assistant solicitor general, argued that
no defendant has ever been convicted of an act of
violence under the Hobbs Act that didn't relate to a
robbery or extortion.
The AFL-CIO and anti-death penalty activists filed
friend-of-the-court briefs opposing NOW's legal position.
Edward McGlynn Gaffney Jr., a Valparaiso University law
professor representing religious groups and animal
rights activists, wrote that NOW's position "represents
a profound threat to Americans who love this country
enough to want to change social policies they deem to
fall short of the capacity of our society for human
compassion and social justice."
The cases are Scheidler v. NOW, 04-1244, and
Operation Rescue v. NOW, 04-1352.
http://www.supremecourtus.govÊ
© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Posted by Permission Ê
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
