Supreme Court Rejects Abortion-Consent Case.
In a blow to abortion foes, the Supreme Court refused to overturn a lower court decision that threw out an Idaho law requiring women younger than 18 years old to seek parental permission for abortions, except in medical emergencies. The Supreme Court offered no comment on the lower court decision, which found the Idaho law's definition of a "medical emergency" unduly restrictive. Most U.S. states require parental consent or notification for abortions by minors, but Idaho's law was challenged by Planned Parenthood as being especially strict.
The Supreme Court in its landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade, ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to abortion before the fetus is viable and to terminate her pregnancy if it poses a risk to her health. At issue was whether the Idaho law was unduly burdensome on young mothers by limiting abortions without consent to "sudden and unexpected" instances of physical complications.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said yes, saying there was no reasonable explanation for the restriction. Other emergency medical procedures are allowed on minors without parental permission that do not fit the "sudden and unexpected" category, it said. The court said the rest of the law couldn't be salvaged because the emergency provisions were too important.
The justices' move Monday sidesteps a highly charged issue amid continuing speculation about a looming vacancy on the high court. At least three justices on the high court have said they believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Liberal groups have vowed to fight any judicial nominee that opposes the landmark ruling.
The last major abortion decision by the Supreme Court came in 2000, when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on so-called partial-birth abortion because it failed to provide an exception to protect the mother's health.
(3-28-05 WSJ.)
The Supreme Court in its landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade, ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to abortion before the fetus is viable and to terminate her pregnancy if it poses a risk to her health. At issue was whether the Idaho law was unduly burdensome on young mothers by limiting abortions without consent to "sudden and unexpected" instances of physical complications.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said yes, saying there was no reasonable explanation for the restriction. Other emergency medical procedures are allowed on minors without parental permission that do not fit the "sudden and unexpected" category, it said. The court said the rest of the law couldn't be salvaged because the emergency provisions were too important.
The justices' move Monday sidesteps a highly charged issue amid continuing speculation about a looming vacancy on the high court. At least three justices on the high court have said they believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Liberal groups have vowed to fight any judicial nominee that opposes the landmark ruling.
The last major abortion decision by the Supreme Court came in 2000, when the court ruled 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on so-called partial-birth abortion because it failed to provide an exception to protect the mother's health.
(3-28-05 WSJ.)
posted by Sid Cottingham | 12:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home