On The Front Lines
Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Case Challenging Parental Notification Rights
WASHINGTON--On Wednesday, November 30, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that challenges the constitutionality of a New Hampshire law requiring parents to be notified of their minor child's intent to have an abortion. 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."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?" asked John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "This case presents the Supreme Court with an extraordinary opportunity to apply principles of law that acknowledge the rights reserved to states and the people to protect minors who confront serious life-changing decisions such 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 asking the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court ruling, Rutherford Institute attorneys points 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. In New Hampshire, for example, parental consent is required for minors to have their bodies pierced and patronize a tanning salon, as well as the "branding" or "tattooing" of anyone under the age of eighteen. As Institute attorneys point out, "If a minor cannot consent to sexual intercourse or routine medical procedures, it is difficult to understand why a minor should be able to obtain an abortion secretly without parental notice, let alone parental involvement."
The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.
Related links:
Sign-up to receive The Rutherford Institute's Insider Report E-newsletter!
Sign-up to receive John W. Whitehead's Weekly Column today!
Sound Off! Tell us what you think about this news story!
Get your free copy of the Bill of Rights!
Support the Fight! Give Today!
Rutherford News Archives
Recent Victories!
The Rutherford Institute
|
