While guest blogging over at La Shawn Barber’s blog, I was keeping readers up to date on the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. A case involving New Hampshire’s parental notification statute, to inform parents when their children would want to kill a grandchild in the womb (aka abortion). Here are those past posts:
Well the high court finally took my sound advice, although it took them a little longer then 5 minutes 
. They tossed out the lower court’s ruling, although they are allowing that court to try again. See those prior posts, because I detailed how new Chief Justice John Roberts was pivotal in bringing about this unanimous outcome. There I also explained in detail how Jesse Jackson has flip flopped on the issue of murdering children in the womb, for political gain.
LifeNews.com has the report of the outcome of this case.
Supreme Court: New Hampshire Teen Abortion Law Should Be Upheld
In a surprising unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal appeals court wrongly overturned a New Hampshire law that requires parental notification before a teen can have an abortion. Pro-abortion groups wanted the law to be struck down because it lacks a health exception.
Instead of issuing a major ruling in the case, the high court asked the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision overturning the law.
The Supreme Court determined the appeals court went too far in issuing a permanent injunction preventing the law from being enforced.
Pro-abortion Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the opinion for the court.
…
The New Hampshire law is patterned after Minnesota’s parental involvement statute which has no health exception and was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court.
That law has been in effect for over 20 years with no reported health emergencies suffered by Minnesota teens.
Mary Balch, an attorney for National Right to Life who handles state legislation, says the claims by abortion advocates that a health exception is needed is a “red herring.”
“When a minor daughter confronts a medical emergency, she needs her parents most,” Balch explained. “As knowledgeable doctors have briefed the Supreme Court, an immediate abortion would not be appropriate treatment for any non-life threatening complication of pregnancy.”
Balch said the New Hampshire law does not preclude a doctor from treating any medical emergencies and does contain an exception allowing immediate abortions for life threatening medical emergencies.
No other members of the high court issued opinions as all joined in O’Connor’s.
…
|
Thank God the high court did better with this one than they have with some previous cases.
