Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood

In the first abortion case in over 5 years, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court has decided to hear a case regarding a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification 48 hours before a child has an abortion unless a judge grants a “bypass.”

The problem, argue critics, is that although the law allows exceptions to the rule when a mothers life is at risk, it does not allow any exception if the mothers health (but not her life) is at risk. To get better sense of what this means, consider Justice Breyer’s hypothetical situation:

“It's the middle of the night in New Hampshire. A pregnant teenager, afraid to tell her parents about her condition, appears at an emergency room in distress. A doctor immediately diagnoses a spike in blood pressure that probably won't kill the teen, but could render her sterile if she doesn't have an immediate abortion. When he calls a judge to ask for permission to do the procedure, as state law prescribes, voice mail answers. What's supposed to happen then?”

In response to this, New Hampshire's attorney general suggested that the doctor could proceed, because state law would protect his good faith medical judgments against prosecution. But Breyer thought that this was too little assurance. The parental notification statute, he remarked, “doesn't say that. It suggests the contrary.”

The New Hampshire parental notification abortion law requires minors to tell a parent before getting an abortion, unless a judge grants a "bypass." The only stated exception is for girls who would die otherwise -- not for those who might face non-life-threatening health problems.

Why shouldn’t there be a health exception? According to New Hampshire, “Doctors would fear being prosecuted or sued if they performed an abortion on a severely sick minor who did not want to notify a parent, several justices said.” Besides, as Justice Scalia said, "It takes 30 seconds to place a phone call."

What do I think? I think that based on the legal standard in question (which is, does the law create an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion?) the law should be ruled unconstitutional unless an exception to the health of the women is inserted into the law. So long as that is done, I fully support parental notification laws, laws in effect in at least 33 states and supported by 69% of the country, according to polls. As Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, notes quite correctly, “You're not talking about parental consent; you're just talking about notification. In high school, a kid can't even have an aspirin without getting a parental slip, so the idea that they could have an abortion procedure without telling the parents that it's about to happen just seems to be outrageous.”

1 comment:

dcat said...

Marc --
Kudos to you for touching the third rail. I have avoided abortion largely because I know how I feel, I am not dogmatic about it (beyond the fact that I feel how I feel, I won't change my mind, and I think those who do not agree with me are wrong!) and as important, I am unlikely to change the minds of others. I buy into the safe, legal, and rare approach.
But there are these gaps -- late term abortions, say, or in this case parental consent, that are not clear cut except those who truly are dogmatic. Minors are minors, and probably ought not to be having medical procedures without the parents at least knowing. But in this case, let's say a girl is 16 and she gets pregnant and wants an abortion. I believe that is her right, and that her parents ought to know that she is in the hospital, but that they cannot explicitly stop her as long as she is in control of her faculties. But I also believe that there must be times when notice is not possible, when the girl's health, and not just her life, is at issue. Making a very young woman sterile for the sake of calling Daddy and Mommy seems like a steep price to pay.
All that said, doesn't anyone else get the sense that the court by God wishes this issue would go away? I cannot imagine that the nine justices ever relish this scenario. Barring some Constitutional issue that I am not seeing, I agree with you -- the New Hampshire law AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN seems to impose an undue burden. Expect lots of fire works no matter what. And expect this to play into the Alito confirmation process as well.
dcat