On The Front Lines
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Calls for Emergency Exception While Affirming Parents' Right to be Notified if Minor Child Opts to Have an Abortion
WASHINGTON -- On Wednesday, January 18, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that largely upholds the constitutionality of a New Hampshire law requiring parents to be notified of their minor child's intent to have an abortion, although it does reaffirm the need to include an exception for medical emergencies. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed an amicus brief with the Court in the case of Kelly A. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in defense of the right of parents to be involved in the major life decisions of their minor children. A copy of the Institute's brief is available here.
"We are pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed the rights reserved to states and the people to protect minors who confront serious life-changing decisions such as abortion," stated John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "After all, if minors require parental consent in order to have their bodies pierced, tattooed, or tanned, why shouldn't their parents be notified about something as life-changing as abortion?"
In November 2003, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England challenged the constitutionality of the "New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act," which imposes criminal penalties on a physician's failure to provide 48 hours advance notice to a child's parent before an abortion can be performed, unless a parent waives notice in writing. However, the 2003 statute does allow parental notification to be waived in situations where a physician certifies that an abortion is necessary to prevent a minor's death and time is insufficient to provide notice. Although at least 33 states require minors to notify a parent, or obtain a parent's consent, prior to having an abortion, a federal court declared the New Hampshire Act unconstitutional. Basing its ruling on the premise that laws may not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to choose abortion, the district court permanently blocked the law two days before it was scheduled to take effect. The district court's ruling was subsequently upheld by a unanimous First Circuit Court of Appeals because of what the appeals court perceived to be the act's lack of a health exception and overly narrow death exception. On May 23, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case, making it the first case challenging an abortion law that the high court has accepted in five years. In vacating the lower court decision, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for a unanimous Court, instructed the lower court to consider invalidating the law only as it applies to those few teenagers who need an immediate abortion for medical reasons. Rutherford Institute attorneys filed a "friend of the court" brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts' rulings, pointing out that an overwhelming principle of American law is that minors cannot consent to or participate in most medically or socially significant activities without parental input or guidance.
