Supreme Court hears abortion case
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:56:08 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Supreme Court hears abortion case
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Supreme Court hears abortion case  (Read 1717 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 30, 2005, 03:19:02 PM »

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=atbqFPVDdmQA&refer=us

Several U.S. Supreme Court justices tried to find a middle ground as they grappled with their first abortion dispute in five years, a challenge to a New Hampshire parental notification law.

The justices, hearing arguments today in Washington, scrutinized a lower court ruling that barred the law from taking effect because it didn't specifically allow emergency abortions to protect the mother's health.

Several members of the court, including abortion-rights supporters Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, suggested the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could have stopped short of invalidating the entire parental notification statute. Ginsburg asked why the lower court didn't say the statute is ``fine for non-emergency cases, but for emergency cases, there is no law.''

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, hearing his first abortion case, suggested that any problems with the law could be handled by a narrower suit, one seeking only to block unconstitutional applications of the statute to emergency situations.

``Why should you be able to challenge the act as a whole if your objection is so narrowly focused?'' Roberts asked Jennifer Dalven, who represents women's health clinics and other groups challenging the law.

Dalven argued that invalidation of the whole statute was the best approach. Otherwise, ``the federal judiciary will be faced with rewriting abortion law after abortion law after abortion law,'' she said.

Health Risks

Dalven said the notification requirement potentially would lead to ``catastrophic'' delays, putting mothers at risk of liver and kidney damage, strokes and infertility.

New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte said the law addresses those risks by letting pregnant girls go to a judge for permission instead of notifying their parents. She called a true emergency ``the rare case.''

Justice Anthony Kennedy, potentially the swing vote in the case, asked Dalven whether making ``one phone call to a judge'' would truly hinder doctors.

``There can be nurses or attendants that can get the judge on the line,'' Kennedy said.

Ayotte said doctors would be able to perform abortions in health-emergency cases even if they couldn't reach a judge. She said her office could issue a legal opinion clarifying that point.

Legal Liability

That explanation didn't satisfy some justices who questioned whether such an opinion would adequately protect doctors from legal liability given the statute's silence on the question.

``How do we know that that's actually the law?'' Breyer asked.

Bush administration lawyer Paul Clement argued that a true emergency was a ``one in a thousand possibility,'' not enough to invalidate the statute under the court's abortion-rights precedents.

The case is only the second abortion dispute at the high court since it reaffirmed the constitutional right in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. The court soon will consider whether to add another case, the Bush administration's bid to revive a federal ban on a procedure critics call ``partial birth'' abortion.

The justices also heard arguments today in a 19-year-old dispute over abortion clinic blockades. The Pro-Life Action League and Operation Rescue want the court to say that a federal anti-extortion law doesn't authorize judges to ban blockades at clinics.

Legal Standard

In the New Hampshire case, the justices are considering whether bids to invalidate abortion restrictions must meet a tough legal standard that applies in other types of cases. The state and the Bush administration say abortion laws should be overturned only if they can't ever be applied in a constitutional manner.

The case also tests whether abortion regulations must contain an explicit exception for cases in which the mother's health is endangered. Although the New Hampshire law allows abortions without parental notice or judicial approval to prevent a girl's death, it says nothing about health emergencies.

The justices are scheduled to rule by July. The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 04-1144.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2005, 04:49:03 PM »

The idea that a child should be able to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge is a shocking one. A student cannot even get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental permission. It would be a strange dichotomy if states could require parental consent for an aspirin, but not parental consent for abortions.

The New Hampshire law in this case does not require parental consent; it only requires parental notification. It is, in my opinion, ludicrous to argue that this statute is unconstitutional. The fact that this kind of case has even reached the Supreme Court is a sad reflection of its chaotic and disarrayed constitutional jurisprudence.

According to the Supreme Court, a law that imposes an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions is unconstitutional. Needless to say, this rule is utterly baseless; nothing in the Constitution even remotely suggests that women have the "right to choose." However, even if we apply the undue burden standard, it seems to me that the New Hampshire statute is acceptable. Under the "emergency clause" in the law, parental notification is not necessary whenever the child's life is in danger. To require parental notification in other cases is completely harmless, and does not impose any sort of "undue burden" on women seeking abortions.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2005, 04:57:51 PM »

An "undue burden" just means a burden the Supreme Court doesn't like. I don't see that it is at all clear that this law passes the test.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2005, 05:28:36 PM »

The idea that a child should be able to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge is a shocking one.

I find the notion that a young woman is legally required to notify her parents a shocking one, Emsworth.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Everyone always brings this up.  To me this comparison calls into question the  excessive power we give parents over children, not the right to privacy.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your jurisprudenc is right-wing, Emsworth.  Others see a clear right to privacy in the constitution. 

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it does, Emsworth.  The right to privacy clearly includes such personal decisions.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all, Emsworth, the typical parent's reaction to notification of an abortion would be to abuse the young person that is, unfortunately, placed under their power by our benighted society.  Typical abuse might be physical, as in beatings, or emotional, such as disapproval.  No, parental notification is not harmless, and your claim that it is shows your complete lack of understanding of human relationships. 

Parents are usually the greatest hazzard in a young persons life, and certainly our society errs in giving these petty tyrants too much power.  There is absolutely no useful purpose in these people being notified of an abortion, and in fact the only reason the religious want parental notification laws enacted is to create opportunities for parental abuse of youths (their stock in trade).
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2005, 05:32:08 PM »

Who sees a 'clear' right to privacy in the Constitution? As in a generic right to privacy?

Your personal opinions are not the Constitution's.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2005, 05:38:01 PM »

Who sees a 'clear' right to privacy in the Constitution? As in a generic right to privacy?

Presumably all liberals do.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, because I am not a Supreme Court Justice.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2005, 05:40:25 PM »

No, they don't. They say it's a "substantive due process" right, which are by definition unclear.

Words do have a limited range of meaning. The fact that a justice claims the Constitution says something, does not mean that it does.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2005, 06:02:19 PM »

The idea that a child should be able to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge is a shocking one.

Especially in a country with more-or-less unrestricted abortion laws...
Logged
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2005, 06:10:10 PM »

do you think the court will uphold the law
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2005, 06:17:52 PM »

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court upheld a law that required a minor to obtain parental consent before getting an abortion.

It is true that Casey involved abortions in general, rather than abortions to protect the mother's life or health. Thus, it could be argued that while parental consent/notification laws may be constitutional in general cases, they would be unconstitutional in cases involving the health of the mother. This argument, however, strikes me as unsound. For all kinds of health procedures--giving a child medicine, performing a surgery, etc.--parental consent or notification is necessary. Abortion should be treated no differently.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2005, 06:25:54 PM »

Roberts is getting good reviews from conservatives during the oral arguments of this case.  But he needs to keep his powder dry until Alito is confirmed.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2005, 06:30:29 PM »

Got a transcript?
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2005, 06:32:45 PM »

I think that transcripts become available only about two weeks after a hearing.
Logged
riceowl
riceowl315
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,350


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2005, 06:53:00 PM »

From MSNBC:

"At least at first blush, Roberts — hearing his first case as chief justice on abortion restrictions — seemed to be trying hard to save the New Hampshire law from being declared unconstitutional, as it was by two lower courts.

What was perhaps even more important was that Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor — both of whom back abortion rights in general — also hinted that they, too, would try hard to salvage the New Hampshire law."

Yay!
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2005, 06:54:51 PM »

The idea that a child should be able to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge is a shocking one.

Especially in a country with more-or-less unrestricted abortion laws...

How is your social political compass score more Authoritarian than mine?  Doesn't make sense.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,906


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2005, 06:58:15 PM »

If a Parental Notification law is passed.

The girl must be given gun training immediately afterwards to protect her from her retaliative parents.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2005, 07:09:24 PM »

How is your social political compass score more Authoritarian than mine?  Doesn't make sense.

Not sure; the test isn't perfect though. Have you tried this alternative one? https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=29882.0
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2005, 06:49:21 AM »

If a Parental Notification law is passed.

The girl must be given gun training immediately afterwards to protect her from her retaliative parents.

Excellent idea phknrocket!  It is only fair, in a brutish, primitive society in which parents are allowed absolute power over their offspring, to allow the offspring carte blanche in their Rebellion.  Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2005, 09:44:08 PM »

They have audio on Oyez
Logged
Brandon H
brandonh
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,305
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 1.74

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2005, 12:08:51 AM »

Someone made a point somewhere that if a minor makes a decision that results in a pregnancy, do you think she is smart enough to make this type of decision on her own?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2005, 01:20:12 AM »

Someone made a point somewhere that if a minor makes a decision that results in a pregnancy, do you think she is smart enough to make this type of decision on her own?

What sort of decision? Being born to a rapist father?
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2005, 01:54:29 AM »

What sort of decision? Being born to a rapist father?

I fail to see how a rare occurance justifies having abortion completely unrestricted.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2005, 06:47:49 AM »

What sort of decision? Being born to a rapist father?

I fail to see how a rare occurance justifies having abortion completely unrestricted.

I fail to see how subjectively characterizing a behavior (having sex/getting pregnant) as 'bad' or 'irresponsible' justifies tyrrany.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2005, 07:14:48 AM »

What sort of decision? Being born to a rapist father?

I didn't know that you supported the death penalty

Logged
Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck
HockeyDude
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,376
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2005, 10:52:11 AM »

The idea that a child should be able to get an abortion without her parents' knowledge is a shocking one. A student cannot even get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental permission. It would be a strange dichotomy if states could require parental consent for an aspirin, but not parental consent for abortions.

They are completely different situations.  That said, I hate the parental notification law, because it then puts the decision in the hands of the girls' parents, where it should not be. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.