Big Brother goes to Court ... Again  

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

via Yahoo News ...

Justices Step Into Abortion Rights Case
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court is considering its first abortion rights case under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, with an unpredictable outcome because of the court's changing makeup.
...and thank God for that changing makeup. Maybe now we can see the court start to do the right thing every now and then on this issue.
The stakes are significant in the dispute over a New Hampshire law requiring minors to tell a parent before ending a pregnancy, although the case does not challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that said abortion is a fundamental constitutional right.
OK ... Two things here ...

1. Do parents not have the right to know if their minor children are having sex, getting pregnant, and having abortions? The are, after all, obligated to their care and feeding as minors. If parents are responsible for their children's healthcare, which they are, doesn't it make complete sense that they be notified if/when their minor children are having this done? If abortion is nothing more than a "medical procedure", then don't parents have the same right to know when their children are having this done as when they are having a broken arm set, another "medical procedure"?

2. Gina, you screwed up. Roe v. Wade does not say that abortion is a fundamental constitutional right. Maybe it would help the accuracy of your reporting if you would read the document you are referring to. What Roe v. Wade says is that the courts' concocted right to privacy is violated if an abortion is disallowed without regard to the stage of the pregnancy. This is, of course, a clear case of judicial activism, but it is not what you said it is.
The outcome is likely to signal where the high court is headed on an issue that has been emotional and divisive among the justices and around the country.
For the sake of the children, I hope the direction is different from the one Justice Blackmun headed.
Abortion was a prominent subject in Roberts' confirmation hearings and has emerged as a major issue in President Bush's nomination of appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. O'Connor has been the swing vote in support of abortion rights.
Go, Alito!
If Alito is confirmed by the Senate early next year, his vote could be needed to break a tie in the New Hampshire case being argued before justices. Abortion cases generally draw large crowds at the Supreme Court, but buzz around Wednesday's argument was particularly frenzied because the court until this fall had no turnover for 11 years.
Alito will be confirmed, period. This case shouldn't even be before the courts. How dare the government intrude upon a parent's right to know what is going on in his/her son or daughter's life?
Abortion rights protesters held signs that said "Save Roe!" while anti-abortion activists sang hymns in front of the court before the argument.
In case you didn't know, Gina, Ms. Roe is now a pro-life activist. Take your pro-murder agenda and shove it up your ass.
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte told justices in a filing that the law "provides pregnant minors with the benefit of parental guidance and assistance in exercising what is undoubtedly a difficult choice."
Yes, and it preserves a parent's right to determine what the rules of the household will be.
O'Connor, a supporter of Roe v. Wade and the first woman named to the court, is retiring after 24 years and will likely leave the court before the case is decided. A Senate vote is planned for January on Alito, who is expected to be more receptive to abortion restrictions.
I vote to confirm.
It is unknown how Roberts or Alito would vote on a rollback of Roe v. Wade.
My guess, knowing what I know about both of them, is that they will sit down and read the Constitution, looking for the "rights" that are supposedly there in support of Justice Blackmun's decision. They will then rule based upon what the Constitution says. This is what has all the pro-abortionites so pissed off. They KNOW there is no constitutional right protecting people who want to kill their kids this way.
Meanwhile, the court could use this case to make it extremely difficult for abortion rights groups to challenge restrictions, without dealing with the sticky issue of overturning Roe. At issue is the legal standard for courts in handling lawsuits over abortion laws.
Ain't America great??
The New Hampshire case is being closely watched by the dozens of states that require minors to tell a parent or get permission before having an abortion.
Hoefully they can rest assured that the federal government will stay out of their business.
Justices were told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19 states, including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.
Not nearly enough.
The court is considering whether the 2003 New Hampshire law puts an "undue burden" on a woman in choosing to end a pregnancy. O'Connor is an architect of the undue burden standard, and was the deciding vote in the last abortion case five years ago, when justices ruled that a Nebraska law banning a type of late-term abortion was too burdensome.
This is laughable. Facing your parents and confessing that you have been careless with your life is now an "undue burden"? Puh-LEASE! Furthermore, what right does a Supreme Court justice have to establish a standard not set forth in law? Where does the Constitution grant that authority?
That law, like the one at issue Wednesday, did not have an exception to protect the mother's health. New Hampshire argues that exceptions are permitted when the mother's health is at risk, and that should be enough.
And we're not even expecting the woman's (make that GIRL'S - this law applies only to MINORS) life to be threatened, only her health.
The law requires a parent or guardian be notified when an abortion is planned for someone under 18, followed by a 48-hour waiting period. A judge can waive the requirement.
Fair enough. If the girl's parents are scum, or worse, involved in the pregnancy, they should not have to know.
"In an emergency, a woman needs to go to the hospital not a courthouse," justices were told in a filing by Jennifer Dalven, attorney for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England which challenged the law.
So have the hospital call Mom and Dad. What the fuck is the big deal?
The Supreme Court agreed to allow news organizations to air audio recording of the court's argument immediately after its conclusion, giving the public its first chance to hear the new chief justice on the bench. Cameras are not allowed in the court.
I won't be listening. Courts are interesting, but tedious. I'll just read the transcripts if I think there is anything that needs checking out.
Roberts, 50, replaced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in September after a yearlong fight with cancer.

Justices agreed to hear the New Hampshire case before Rehnquist's death - and before O'Connor surprised colleagues with news that she was stepping down.

The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.
So we have here a case where some kid got herself knocked up and doesn't want her parents to know. That's basically what this case is about. This case is not about abortion. It's about parental authority in the home. These people want to raise your children for you, and they want to do it their way. They don't want you to have the power and/or authority to live and raise your family as you see fit. This is a clear case of the Left trying to impose its sorry-ass excuse for "values" on everyone else and cram it down our throats.

With any justice at all, the law will be upheld.