Planned Parenthood:a young woman needs to get to a hospital, not a court

[dajoki]

NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/opinion/30wed1.html?th&emc=th

The Next Abortion Decision

Published: November 30, 2005

In the abortion rights case set for argument today, the Supreme Court is taking up the most contentious social issue in the country at a moment of transition in its own membership. The theatrics could be fascinating. But what makes the case truly compelling is the substance. The case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, challenges two longstanding pillars of abortion rights jurisprudence, reproductive freedom and the authority of the courts. Both have real-world consequences for the lives of women and the rule of law.

The substantive issue first: The Supreme Court has ruled that states can require that doctors notify a pregnant teenager's parent before performing an abortion. But the court has also made it clear, beginning with its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, that any restrictions on abortion rights must contain exceptions to protect a woman's health and life. This is a core principle that New Hampshire lawmakers ignored in 2003 when they passed a parental notification law that omitted any exception for medical problems that were not life-threatening.

Quite predictably, the law was challenged. Two days before it was to take effect, a federal trial judge in New Hampshire issued an injunction barring its enforcement. Neither the trial judge nor the reviewing appellate court had any trouble dismissing the claim by New Hampshire's attorney general, Kelly Ayotte, that the state had covered the problem of the health exception by giving a pregnant minor the option of seeking permission for an abortion from a judge. Neither should the justices. In an emergency, as Planned Parenthood of Northern New England notes in its brief, a young woman needs to get to a hospital, not a courthouse.

The implications of the procedural issue are even more serious. With support from the Justice Department, Ms. Ayotte is asking the court to end, or severely constrict, the longstanding power of federal courts to do what the trial judge in New Hampshire did: bar the enforcement of potentially dangerous and unconstitutional abortion restrictions before they go into effect and injure people. Though it is obscured by technical-sounding legalese, this issue concerns what would essentially be a radical court-stripping plan, one that would leave state legislatures free to ignore the Supreme Court's parameters for abortion regulation until a minor, already unconstitutionally endangered and in the midst of a medical crisis, somehow made it to court to challenge the law.

The Supreme Court should see this argument for what it is: an attack on the federal courts and on women's rights and health.

[noonwitch]

1. I support parental consent laws, as long as there is a legal procedure

for the girls who can't tell their parents, because they fear abuse by their parents or because a relative is the impregnator.

It isn't right for a teen to have major surgery without parental consent. A doctor can't even examine a teen under any other circumstances without parental consent, or that of a legal entity caring for the child (DHS). If the parents aren't abusive, the kid needs to talk to them about her situation. Who knows, they may even be able to help her?!

Condoms should be available without parental consent, however, and prescription birth control should be dispensed only with a doctor urging the girl to discuss her sexual behavior with her parents. Unfortunately, the right does not understand that Planned Parenthood does discuss these issues with teen patients.

I am opposed to waiting periods, however. That's an insult to my intelligence as a woman. Do the anti-abortion people really think that an adult woman goes to get an abortion without thinking about all the alternatives?

[dajoki]

2. sh should be able...

to talk to them about it, but some can't.

[TheWraith]

3. The logic on waiting periods is similar to the reasoning around guns.

To prevent someone from taking drastic and irreversible action in a moment of heated emotion or stress. I'm not arguing for or against, just saying that that's the reasoning behind it.