Roberts inclined to salvage abortion law

Roberts inclined to salvage abortion law
He downplays absence of health exception in New Hampshire's notification statute

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Thursday, December 1, 2005

Washington -- Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts probed for ways to preserve New Hampshire's controversial requirement that minor girls get a parent's consent before having an abortion during oral arguments before the court Wednesday that cheered abortion opponents and worried abortion rights backers.

~snip~

The New Hampshire law requires that at least one parent be notified before girls under age 18 can have an abortion. It provides that a minor can avoid parental notification with a judge's approval at least 48 hours before an abortion.

The law was explicitly written without an exception for the health of a woman, as the court has demanded in a series of cases since Roe, and was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit based in Boston.

~snip~

Roberts focused on the tiny number of cases that might arise where a teenage girl's health might be at risk without immediate access to an abortion.

"The problem arises only in an emergency situation," Roberts said. "The vast majority of cases don't involve an emergency situation." He asked the lawyer representing Planned Parenthood, "Why challenge the act as a whole when the objection is so narrow?"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/01/MNG7SG0SBR1.DTL

:wtf:

notification. What is the truth on that?

The question remains, Does SCOTUS get to draft a exception clause for health emergencies or does the law go back to New Hampshire, where it barely passed, so that they can rewrite it and try to pass it again?

This isn't just an abortion issue, its also about judicial activism. Are we going to see a Roberts Court that writes or rewrites legislation?

This is defending 'Murica and the Constitution! Didn't you get your Kool-Aid today? :patriot:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts probed for ways to preserve New Hampshire's controversial requirement that minor girls get a parent's consent before having an abortion during oral arguments before the court Wednesday that cheered abortion opponents and worried abortion rights backers.

Confusing sentence.

to say the least!

That's a good point.

to carry a pregnancy to term?

I wonder what the American Academy of Pediatrics would have to say about that?

This law is talking about children, not "young women" as the article misleadingly says. Not every pregnant teenager is 17 or 18. My friends' daughters ALL were menstruating by age 13. Many girls start earlier. The younger the girl, the less likely she is to recognize the pregnancy, admit it and seek help in time.

The consequence of this law is to force unmarried children to carry pregnancies to term, or go before a JUDGE who will judge if they are worthy to be pardoned. It is a barbaric punishment for girl children who "sin" by "tempting" men.

What next, Roberts? The New Magdalene Laundries?

life saving measures on a minor without parental/guardian notification ? If a minor was involved in a vehicle accident, do they have to wait until approval before doing life saving surgery ?

insure that she will be able to have children in the future, if she so chooses. This is part of the health of the patient aspect.

concerned about protecting the minority against majority rule. So to answer Mr. Roberts' question, because even one emergency situation neccesiates a law that covers it. Idiot!

Confirm the guy even though you were denied access to the documents that should have been disclosed.

to get married w/out parental approval?

Not that it's a health issue, just wondering.

Parenthood lawyer was so much better than the state attorney general, it was painful. (But I would expect that, since the Planned Parenthood lawyer clearly specializes in this field, while the AG does not.)

Roberts asked the Planned Parenthood lawyer about severability (a doctrine which could save the statute by just cutting out the questionable part) and she launched into a discourse about prior Supreme Court treatment of severability. She knew more than Roberts on the subject!

The Planned Parenthood lawyer was NEVER at a loss for words, nor at a loss for a clear, detailed, answer. The only time her answers were incomplete were when people like Roberts or O'Connor would interrupt her. Interruptions did not flummox her, however.

By contrast, the state AG's voice was trembling much of the time.

although the Solicitor General (as you would expect) was fairly good.

I wonder why the AG didn't use one of her prosecutors or outside talent. It sounded like she hadn't been in a courtroom in years.

she was the one arguing Planned Parenthood's position) was outstanding!

If the dems don't block Alito, it's done. Hope everyone has a current passport.

"The problem arises only in an emergency situation," Roberts said. "The vast majority of cases don't involve an emergency situation." He asked the lawyer representing Planned Parenthood, "Why challenge the act as a whole when the objection is so narrow?"



I can't believe this is happening. :grr:

.... when we only want to do it to .01% of the population?

What a fine legal mind we have here.

what makes these male Judges (or a female Judge for that matter)
think that they have a right to dictate what any girl or woman chooses to do
with their own body
when they are physically unable to have an abortion themselves????

They need to get their noses out of female's crotches.
Ew! It's like they're a bunch of perverts or something!:freak::freak::freak:

What is up with their obsession over abortion?

And seriously, no offense to all males!:)