Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1161.01A
No this isn't "important" per se. Not "important" in the general sense of the day. But the case itself is very important. The case involves the notification of parents of an unemancipated child that said child wants an abortion. Yes, this is that infamous case that the high court will here in this session. The law in questio is cited below, with the judicial bypass provisions.
No abortion shall be performed upon an unemancipated minor or upon a female for whom a guardian or conservator has been appointed pursuant to RSA 464-A because of a finding of incompetency, until at least 48 hours after written notice of the pending abortion has been delivered in the manner specified in paragraphs II and III.
The notice requirement is waived if:
(a) The attending abortion provider certifies in the pregnant minor's medical record that the abortion is necessary to prevent the minor's death and there is insufficient time to provide required notice; or
(b) The person or persons who are entitled to notice certify in writing that they have been notified.
Now, this has been appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the law places an "undue burden" on the person desiring the abortion. Clearly, based on the statute above, this isn't true. There is a provision protecting the life of the mother (Section A), and it must be held that as a minor (that being a person under the age of 18) they do not have the controlling legal authority to enter into a binding contract. That contract, of course, is a medical procedure between a doctor and their patient.
This has been a precedent in this nation for many years. Children can't enter into a contract without their parents approval, either as co-signers, or the parents signing off in other ways, as provided in Section B above. We live in a nation where children need parental notification for a tattoo, or a piercing, or even if a questionable movie is shown in school (such as a movie like "Glory" which is rated R). So, the question is why are the pro-abortion people pushing for a minor to obtain an abortion? Some would argue that the parents might be upset over the idea, a la Casey, and that may be a factor in this case. True to a point, but a fact of life that must be dealt with.
There is also a judicial bypass available, which the First Circuit Court acknowledged:
If a minor does not want her parent or guardian notified, she may request a state judge, after a hearing, to "authorize an abortion provider to perform the abortion if said judge determines that the pregnant minor is mature and capable of giving informed consent to the proposed abortion," or if the judge determines that "the performance of an abortion upon her without notification of her parent, guardian, or conservator would be in her best interests." RSA 132:26, II. In these proceedings, the pregnant minor may act on her own behalf or be appointed a guardian ad litem, and she must also be advised that she has a right to request court-appointed counsel. RSA 132:26, II (a). The court proceedings "shall be confidential and shall be given such precedence over other pending matters so that the court may reach a decision promptly and without delay so as to serve the best interest of the pregnant minor."
In other words, in addition to the law itself, and it's stated provisions, and this judicial bypass, every effort has been made to ensure that the minor's "right" to obtain an abortion has been met. So, I fail to see where Planned Parenthood has a problem with this statute. It seems to me that this judicial bypass could be exercised if the minor can prove that her parents would be extremely upset over being notified that their little angel had decided to make a grown-up decision, but doesn't want to deal with the grown-up consequences. Like in Casey the argument was over whether a woman could avoid notifying her husband if such a notification could upset him, i.e., an abusive husband. Likewise, the argument could go to "what if her parents are abusive?"
The above question is a foolish one. The last time I checked, child abuse was still illegal. A child who admits that she lives in abusive household likely won't have to deal with notifying her parents, nor will she have to deal with them again after the state files charges against them. So, in my humble and limited legally-driven opinion, this argument has no basis within the case.
So, again, we're left with looking at the statute--all of it--and asking where is the "undue burden" Planned Parenthood argues is present? I don't see it. EVERY aspect has been addressed. No minor may have an abortion without parental consent unless the amount of time wasted in the effort would harm the mother, or if just cause can be shown to a court that the child is mature and capable of making such a decision, and that the parents shouldn't be notified. So, again I ask, where is this "undue burden?"
It isn't here. It isn't present. In no way does this law violate a woman's "right to choose." The "right" is still preserved. (And I might add that this is not an enumerated right, but one rooted in stare decisis; getting the court to change this would be like pulling teeth on a crocodile.) This whole fiasco regarding abortion lies in the original findings in Roe. We all know this case, and we know the repercussions that have occurred from this miscarriage of jurisprudence. Legal scholars--liberal and conservative alike--have scratched their heads over how the court even came up with the decision to begin with. Even Justice Ginsburg acknowledges that she is at a loss for words over the decision, despite her liberal leanings. I can at least credit her that much; she recognizes the utter lack of jurisprudence within Roe.
This case will likely be another "landmark" case should this be decided wrong. If the court upholds that a minor need not notify her parents, a la Casey (the spousal notification was struck down), then we should prepare for the repercussions from this precedent. This is a surgical procedure, not a piercing or tattoo. What will be next? I mentioned Justice Ginsburg above, and I praised her for recognizing that Roe was decided incorrectly. Now, I condemn her; she did state that the age of consent should be lowered to age 12.
These are minors. Children. They aren't mature enough to handle grown-up decisions like this. This being the concepts of sex and abortion. They claim they can, and I'm sure many parents hold that to be true. But sex has consequences, and one of those is possibly becoming pregnant. When we allow children to simply disregard the repercussions of that act and it's consequences, we're teaching them that they can run from anything instead of being the "young adults" we trust them to be, and face the music. In addition, we would be teaching our children that life means nothing; it can be easily conceived, and as easily disregarded. When that happens, we're all in trouble.
This case must be decided correctly. The high court must see that this statute doesn't violate any provisions of Roe, nor does it violate any provisions of the precedents based on Roe. (Those four major cases would be Webster, Akron, Casey, and Stenberg.) This law protects the child from making a potentially dangerous decision without their parents. It protects their right with certain provisions outlined above. Above all though it maintains that the parents are still the controlling guardians of the child, and it recognizes that they do have a say in the decision.
Publius II
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1161.01A
No this isn't "important" per se. Not "important" in the general sense of the day. But the case itself is very important. The case involves the notification of parents of an unemancipated child that said child wants an abortion. Yes, this is that infamous case that the high court will here in this session. The law in questio is cited below, with the judicial bypass provisions.
No abortion shall be performed upon an unemancipated minor or upon a female for whom a guardian or conservator has been appointed pursuant to RSA 464-A because of a finding of incompetency, until at least 48 hours after written notice of the pending abortion has been delivered in the manner specified in paragraphs II and III.
The notice requirement is waived if:
(a) The attending abortion provider certifies in the pregnant minor's medical record that the abortion is necessary to prevent the minor's death and there is insufficient time to provide required notice; or
(b) The person or persons who are entitled to notice certify in writing that they have been notified.
Now, this has been appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the law places an "undue burden" on the person desiring the abortion. Clearly, based on the statute above, this isn't true. There is a provision protecting the life of the mother (Section A), and it must be held that as a minor (that being a person under the age of 18) they do not have the controlling legal authority to enter into a binding contract. That contract, of course, is a medical procedure between a doctor and their patient.
This has been a precedent in this nation for many years. Children can't enter into a contract without their parents approval, either as co-signers, or the parents signing off in other ways, as provided in Section B above. We live in a nation where children need parental notification for a tattoo, or a piercing, or even if a questionable movie is shown in school (such as a movie like "Glory" which is rated R). So, the question is why are the pro-abortion people pushing for a minor to obtain an abortion? Some would argue that the parents might be upset over the idea, a la Casey, and that may be a factor in this case. True to a point, but a fact of life that must be dealt with.
There is also a judicial bypass available, which the First Circuit Court acknowledged:
If a minor does not want her parent or guardian notified, she may request a state judge, after a hearing, to "authorize an abortion provider to perform the abortion if said judge determines that the pregnant minor is mature and capable of giving informed consent to the proposed abortion," or if the judge determines that "the performance of an abortion upon her without notification of her parent, guardian, or conservator would be in her best interests." RSA 132:26, II. In these proceedings, the pregnant minor may act on her own behalf or be appointed a guardian ad litem, and she must also be advised that she has a right to request court-appointed counsel. RSA 132:26, II (a). The court proceedings "shall be confidential and shall be given such precedence over other pending matters so that the court may reach a decision promptly and without delay so as to serve the best interest of the pregnant minor."
In other words, in addition to the law itself, and it's stated provisions, and this judicial bypass, every effort has been made to ensure that the minor's "right" to obtain an abortion has been met. So, I fail to see where Planned Parenthood has a problem with this statute. It seems to me that this judicial bypass could be exercised if the minor can prove that her parents would be extremely upset over being notified that their little angel had decided to make a grown-up decision, but doesn't want to deal with the grown-up consequences. Like in Casey the argument was over whether a woman could avoid notifying her husband if such a notification could upset him, i.e., an abusive husband. Likewise, the argument could go to "what if her parents are abusive?"
The above question is a foolish one. The last time I checked, child abuse was still illegal. A child who admits that she lives in abusive household likely won't have to deal with notifying her parents, nor will she have to deal with them again after the state files charges against them. So, in my humble and limited legally-driven opinion, this argument has no basis within the case.
So, again, we're left with looking at the statute--all of it--and asking where is the "undue burden" Planned Parenthood argues is present? I don't see it. EVERY aspect has been addressed. No minor may have an abortion without parental consent unless the amount of time wasted in the effort would harm the mother, or if just cause can be shown to a court that the child is mature and capable of making such a decision, and that the parents shouldn't be notified. So, again I ask, where is this "undue burden?"
It isn't here. It isn't present. In no way does this law violate a woman's "right to choose." The "right" is still preserved. (And I might add that this is not an enumerated right, but one rooted in stare decisis; getting the court to change this would be like pulling teeth on a crocodile.) This whole fiasco regarding abortion lies in the original findings in Roe. We all know this case, and we know the repercussions that have occurred from this miscarriage of jurisprudence. Legal scholars--liberal and conservative alike--have scratched their heads over how the court even came up with the decision to begin with. Even Justice Ginsburg acknowledges that she is at a loss for words over the decision, despite her liberal leanings. I can at least credit her that much; she recognizes the utter lack of jurisprudence within Roe.
This case will likely be another "landmark" case should this be decided wrong. If the court upholds that a minor need not notify her parents, a la Casey (the spousal notification was struck down), then we should prepare for the repercussions from this precedent. This is a surgical procedure, not a piercing or tattoo. What will be next? I mentioned Justice Ginsburg above, and I praised her for recognizing that Roe was decided incorrectly. Now, I condemn her; she did state that the age of consent should be lowered to age 12.
These are minors. Children. They aren't mature enough to handle grown-up decisions like this. This being the concepts of sex and abortion. They claim they can, and I'm sure many parents hold that to be true. But sex has consequences, and one of those is possibly becoming pregnant. When we allow children to simply disregard the repercussions of that act and it's consequences, we're teaching them that they can run from anything instead of being the "young adults" we trust them to be, and face the music. In addition, we would be teaching our children that life means nothing; it can be easily conceived, and as easily disregarded. When that happens, we're all in trouble.
This case must be decided correctly. The high court must see that this statute doesn't violate any provisions of Roe, nor does it violate any provisions of the precedents based on Roe. (Those four major cases would be Webster, Akron, Casey, and Stenberg.) This law protects the child from making a potentially dangerous decision without their parents. It protects their right with certain provisions outlined above. Above all though it maintains that the parents are still the controlling guardians of the child, and it recognizes that they do have a say in the decision.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:20 PM
2 Comments:
I know the ACLU's position in destroying the family and I see no difference in Planned Parenthood being a part of it. This is but one of many attacks. This has nothing to do with Roe case. This is about the relationship between parent and their child. I see nothing wrong with the notification law. Rawriter
Raw,
On the contrary, this has as much to do with Roe as past cases involving abortion did. I call it "incremental precedents."
Groups like the ACLU know they can't go for the gusto, and transform this nation as they'd like to. So, bit-by-bit, they chip away at the country, it's morals, and it's traditions.
Thomas made an outstanding argument against the court ruling in favor of Planned Parenthood. And he's correct with looking ahead to what sort of precedent would be set in ruling that the New Hampshire statute is unconstitutional.
Scalia is notorious in his decisions of predicting the next precedential step when the court rules wrongly. I think Thomas is on the right track with his prediction.
As a matter of fact, this case has similar reverberations with another case that was commented on right here. Fields v. Palmdale, where the 9th Cir. Court ruled that, in effect, parents have next-to-no say in the education of their children, especially in relation to sex.
Let me go out on a limb here, and point to both as attempts to strip parents of their fundamental rights in knowing what their kids are doing, and being able to control what the input is that they receive.
Should this case be decided wrong, it could literally be a license for young ladies to be as lascivious as they desire with no consequences for their actions, and no one to answer to except themselves.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home