USSC decides on NH Abortion Parental Notification Law

[Apeman81]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...f0JKA&refer=us

Jan. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court, reaching a rare compromise in an abortion case, unanimously told a lower court to reconsider a ruling that struck down a New Hampshire parental-notification requirement because it lacked an exception for health emergencies.

The justices said their past cases require that doctors be allowed to perform emergency abortions to protect a patient's health. The justices said that instead of striking down the entire New Hampshire law, the lower court should consider simply blocking enforcement of the notification requirement in cases of health emergencies.

``Only a few applications of New Hampshire's parental notification statute would present a constitutional problem,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.


I think the court made a reasoned and proper response in this case. The basis the lower court used to declare the law unconstitutional was a very narrow interpretation of possibilities concerning the immediacy of the situation precluding the time needed to notify a parent before performing an abortion, and that the law did not specifically make acceptation for this possibility.

The lower court did not assert that requiring parental notification was unconstitutional. Hence, the decision to send it back to the lower court to address the very limited issue of immediate need.

I wonder how the lower court is going to handle this.

[Disinterested]

They'll probably ignore it. Once again the U.S. Supreme Court punts on hot button issues. They never ever say anything substantial regarding abortion or second amendment stuff.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Disinterested They'll probably ignore it. Once again the U.S. Supreme Court punts on hot button issues. They never ever say anything substantial regarding abortion or second amendment stuff.

You may be correct. However, I have some hope as the result of this decision.

The court finally toook note that the foundation of the law in question had not been brought into question in the lower court's decision to declare the law unconstitutional. The lower court had an objection to a portion of the process involved. Instead of the USSC just saying "you're right", they chose to tell the lower court to "fix it".

We shall see.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Apeman81 You may be correct. However, I have some hope as the result of this decision. The court finally toook note that the foundation of the law in question had not been brought into question in the lower court's decision to declare the law unconstitutional. The lower court had an objection to a portion of the process involved. Instead of the USSC just saying "you're right", they chose to tell the lower court to "fix it". We shall see.

All they basically told the lower court was you can't reject an entire law because of one flawed provision. It really had little to do with abortion and more to do with the semantics of the law. The Supreme Court rarely makes any precedent setting decisions on complex issues such as abortion or the second amendment.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Disinterested All they basically told the lower court was you can't reject an entire law because of one flawed provision. It really had little to do with abortion and more to do with the semantics of the law. The Supreme Court rarely makes any precedent setting decisions on complex issues such as abortion or the second amendment.

The prededent being the USSC adopting a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" attitude.

This is a deviation from some earlier decisions by the court to simply support the lower court's decision.