Supreme Court Abortion Case Hinges on Health Exception

The U.S. Supreme Court has heard its first abortion-related case in
five years. It involves New Hampshire's parental notification law, and
whether that law is too strict.

The main argument by pro-choice forces was this: New Hampshire's law
does not provide an exception to protect the health of a teenager
getting an abortion. They made it sound like that could lead to the
death of young women in a medical emergency.

"We believe that any law that delays a doctor from treating a patient
in a medical emergency, does not protect that teen from harm," said
New Hampshire State Representative Terie Norelli.

But New Hampshire's Attorney General Kelly Ayotte pointed out courts
have so stretched the meaning of "health," it can excuse almost any
abortion for almost any reason. "General health concerns can include
anything – mental health... it can just include broad health
concerns," Ayotte said.

It can even include a danger to the girl's so-called "emotional
health" from worrying about what will happen if she doesn't get the
abortion.

One other major point of contention for the justices involved the
law's bypass clause which allows a judge rather than the girl's
parents to be notified about her abortion.

Justice Stephen Breyer worried judges can not always be reached in an
emergency. "It's two in the morning and there's, you know, one of
those things, 'leave a message,'" Breyer said.

But Justice Antonin Scalia suggested New Hampshire could solve that
problem by having a designated on-call "abortion judge." Scalia
explained, "And he can be reached anytime, anywhere. It takes 30
seconds to place a phone call."

But parents outside the Court pointed out what was getting ignored in
all this talk of judges and health was the very heart of why most
states have parental notification laws: parents want to know and need
to know if their child's health is in danger.

Charmaine Yoest of the Family Research Council told CBN News, "Eighty
percent of Americans say that they support parental notification laws.
That includes people who support abortion. Parents who are pro-choice
still want to know if their daughter is going to through a procedure
that could threaten her life."

How the Court decides this case may be as important as what it
decides. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a fairly reliable pro-choice
vote, was on the bench to hear the case. But she will almost surely
have been replaced by Judge Samuel Alito, a likely pro-life vote, when
the Court makes its ruling. It will then be up to the Court whether or
not to let Alito have a vote, and his vote could well decide the case.

www.cbn.com