Abortion Case Heard
Today, Solicitor General Paul Clement and the attorney general of New Hampshire argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of a statute that would require parental notification before minors receive abortions unless the young mother's life is at risk.
The issue is whether the statute -- which does have a judicial bypass option -- is unconstitutional because it doesn't offer an exception to the notification requirement when the minor mother's "health" is at risk (obviously, the life and health of the unborn baby are in serious jeopardy).
The question, of course, is what "health" means. Does it encompass mental health? And what counts as "mental health"? The fact that a girl is depressed about having become pregnant out of wedlock? And why doesn't anyone ever worry about the mental health -- or physical health ramifications of abortion?
Finally, as the Solicitor General (a law school friend of mine but also, objectively, a brilliant guy) asked the Court, "Do you invalidate 1000 applications of the statute, noting that 999 of them are constitutional?"
The issue is whether the statute -- which does have a judicial bypass option -- is unconstitutional because it doesn't offer an exception to the notification requirement when the minor mother's "health" is at risk (obviously, the life and health of the unborn baby are in serious jeopardy).
The question, of course, is what "health" means. Does it encompass mental health? And what counts as "mental health"? The fact that a girl is depressed about having become pregnant out of wedlock? And why doesn't anyone ever worry about the mental health -- or physical health ramifications of abortion?
Finally, as the Solicitor General (a law school friend of mine but also, objectively, a brilliant guy) asked the Court, "Do you invalidate 1000 applications of the statute, noting that 999 of them are constitutional?"
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:40 PM
4 Comments:
"the life and health of the unborn baby" is not supposed to be taken into account. Thinking about the unborn will stop abortions.
Excellent comment, stackja1945!
The court shouldn't have even taken the case. The 2003 New Hampshire Law is Constitutional.
Perhaps Chief Justice Roberts saw this as a no-brainer case the new SCOTUS could use to break the ice on the abortion issue. Maybe by taking a case that will win support from both conservatives and liberals on the court, he can get past the "Oh, this is the first abortion case for new Chief Justice Roberts." microscope without much controversy.
Who knows?
Post a Comment
<< Home