Laws that require female minors to seek parental notification before obtaining an abortion are being debated before the Supreme Court. Some are calling for exceptions to the law to be made in case the girl’s life and health is in danger, according to this Washington Post article.
Amid intensifying controversy on Capitol Hill over judicial appointments, the Supreme Court today took on another abortion-related case.
Specifically, the court said it would consider whether laws requiring parental notification before a minor can get an abortion must make an explicit exception when the minor’s health is at stake. More broadly, the case concerns the standard to be used by courts when reviewing the constitutionality of abortion laws.
[…]
At issue in today’s case is a New Hampshire parental notification law that did not make an exception to protect the health of the minor and was therefore struck down by the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which cited what it considered an unbroken line of Supreme Court precedents on the subject.
A major issue in the case is the standard to be used by the courts when reviewing such controversies.
The attorney general of New Hampshire argued that a law such as New Hampshire’s must be upheld unless a challenger meets the difficult burden of showing that “no set of circumstances exists” under which it would be constitutional.
Abortion rights advocates believe that few, if any, challenges cold survive such a test, which, in any case, has been rejected by most appeals courts.
The Planned Parenthood Federation of Northern New England, which challenged New Hampshire’s law, argued that the operative test is the less formidable one established by the Supreme Court of whether the law places a “substantial obstacle” or “undue burden” on the right to an abortion for any woman.
Forty-four states have “parental notification” laws, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court insofar as they allow judges to “bypass” notification when they consider it necessary.
Today’s case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood , raises the question of whether these laws, to pass constitutional muster, must explicitly mention protection of the health of the woman as one of the reasons a judge may skip parental notification.
In its last major abortion decision in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that state laws banning so-called “partial-birth abortions” must provide an exception to protect the mother’s health.
The court will rule in its next term on today’s case.
My problem with parental notification laws is the fear that they could lead to more “notification” and “consent” laws being passed, ( such as needing the husband’s or boyfriend’s consent first) in an attempt to squash a woman’s right to choose completely, and deny her right to privacy. As if pregnant and scared teenage girls don’t have it hard enough as it is. They’ll be shamed by society whether they continue the pregnancy to full term, or abort anyway. It’s the wonderful Catch 22 all women must endure in this country when it comes to our reproductive health and choices.
My problem with parental notification laws is the fear that they could lead to more “notification”? and “consent”? laws being passed, ( such as needing the husband’s or boyfriend’s consent first) in an attempt to squash a woman’s right to choose completely, and deny her right to privacy. As if pregnant and scared teenage girls don’t have it hard enough as it is. They’ll be shamed by society whether they continue the pregnancy to full term, or abort anyway. It’s the wonderful Catch 22 all women must endure in this country when it comes to our reproductive health and choices.
I’d never shame her either way, but I sure wish he had a choice as to whether to pay for HER choice.