| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:45 pm Abortion Issues Return to Supreme Court |
|
| Quote: |
Abortion returns to high court's docket
Justices to hear two high-profile cases this week
From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court takes on two high-profile abortion cases this week, refocusing attention on one of the court's biggest judicial and social conflicts.
The confirmation battle over court nominee Samuel Alito is likely to center to a large extent on these cases and his own views on abortion rights.
"For better or worse, the issue of abortion seems to be the one on which the Supreme Court is judged more than any other," said Edward Lazarus, a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. (Watch the cases being heard)
Parental notification an issue
The most-watched case, to be argued Wednesday, deals with a 2003 New Hampshire law that would make it illegal for an abortion to be performed on a minor unless a parent or legal guardian had been notified in writing 48 hours in advance. The only exception would be if the procedure was necessary to prevent the minor's death.
A federal appeals court found that exception is not broad enough, ruled it unconstitutional and blocked it from taking effect.
"This law does seem to be crafted to demand some kind of Supreme Court review," Lazarus said. "It really goes to this question of how much you have to protect the life versus the health of the mother. That comes from the initial ruling in Roe v. Wade. It's not an issue that has been settled at the court."
Among those who would have been affected by the law is a New Hampshire woman who recently spoke with CNN. She had an unplanned pregnancy as a teenager.
"I decided it was best for me to have an abortion because I did not want to be a parent at that point in my life," she said.
Now 20 and a college senior, she is speaking out against the state statute.
"These laws are only about eroding access to abortion," she told CNN. "If you want to talk to your parents, you can do that, but if the state steps in and tells you that you have to do that to protect your reproduction, it is very disappointing."
Poll: Americans favor limits, oppose ban
At least 33 states have parental notification laws. A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found 69 percent of Americans surveyed favored a law requiring minors to get parental consent for an abortion; 28 percent opposed such a requirement.
But 61 percent did not support a constitutional amendment to ban abortion, consistent with polls over the years on the question. Thirty-seven percent favored such an amendment.
"In a narrow sense, the public is very concerned about parental notification and other restrictions on the right to abortion," said Thomas Goldstein, an appellate attorney who has argued many cases before the justices.
"More broadly, this case is really a bellwether for where the Supreme Court is going to go in terms of limiting Roe v. Wade, and potentially eventually overruling it."
New Hampshire argues separate provisions -- which it calls "safety valves" -- provide for a health exception by allowing doctors to seek an emergency judicial waiver of the notification requirement for non-life-threatening health issues.
Legal scholars say the case will turn on whether New Hampshire's law represents an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions. The high court has followed that standard when deciding whether such laws are too restrictive. Supporters of the state say the law in question falls far below that.
"Should parents be notified if a minor's going to have an abortion? Of course our answer is that they should be notified," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice.
"You're not talking about parental consent, you're just talking about notification," he added. "In high school, a kid can't even have an aspirin without getting a parental slip, so the idea that they could have an abortion procedure without telling the parents that it's about to happen just seems to be outrageous."
Decision has national impact
A ruling in the case will have national implications for a variety of laws dealing with access to abortion.
The last time the high court intervened in an important abortion-related case was in 2000, when it threw out a Nebraska law banning a controversial late-term procedure opponents called "partial-birth" abortion.
Since Roe v. Wade, various states have tried to place restrictions and exceptions on access to the procedure, prompting a string of high court "clarifications" on the issue over the years.
In the New Hampshire case, the justices will delve into a subtle but potentially monumental argument over what legal standard should be applied when courts review abortion laws. A federal judge in the case last year allowed courts to block the law while the case was appealed.
That legal standard is important because the "partial-birth" issue is now back before the high court. Both the federal government and several states have prohibited the late-term abortion procedure, but the ban has not yet been allowed to go into effect. President Bush signed the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, but it contains no health exception.
Appeals could reach the high court within weeks, and if the justices accept the cases, they could be heard next spring, with two new members on the bench.
Protest restrictions revisited
A separate case argued an hour before the New Hampshire appeal will tackle another contentious product of the abortion debate: protests outside medical and reproductive clinics.
Courts have been wrestling with this issue for two decades, prompting one lawsuit and appeal after another. Complicating matters have been conflicting rulings over the years from the Supreme Court.
As far back as the mid-1980s, anti-abortion groups began offering "classes" on abortion-clinic protest strategies. The high court in the past has ruled on protest guidelines: specifying distance from the clinics and what kind of conduct is permissible.
The justices will revisit their ruling of two years ago that said protesters cannot be prosecuted simply for harassing patients and staff, blocking doors and other disruptive behavior.
The court will clarify whether federal laws against racketeering and extortion can be used against those who, according to the official court filing, organize "sit-ins and demonstrations that obstruct public's access" to medical clinics.
Abortion rights supporters say those laws were the only solution to what they call dangerous, often violent behavior aimed against those seeking or providing the medical procedure.
"There are protections now through some laws to make sure that people are safe, coming and going, from reproductive health providers," said Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood, which operates 850 affiliated health centers.
"This case is important because it puts again, into our law, one more way to stop that kind of violence and domestic terrorism against providers and against patients who need services."
This group and others filed suit in federal court more than a decade ago.
Operation Rescue, one of the plaintiffs in the case, says this is about free speech and the right of assembly.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/29/scotus.abortion/index.html
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
|
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:52 pm |
|
I agree with the New Hampshire law--except I do believe that there should be an exception for abusive parents. Although I do think that it shouldn't even be allowed unless for extreme circumstances, it's better to, if we have these laws allowing them to get abortions, have parental notification--unless the child is going to be abused by the parent for this. But parents need to be notified.
However, I couldn't find the second one in the article. What is it?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:01 pm |
|
There are several with making an exception for abusive parents. One, not many abused teens would be willing to prove it, it's a very very difficult thing to do. Two, how would they prove it? How could they determine whether a teen was really physicaly or verbaly abused? What happens if they think a girl is lying about being abused and refuse her or contact her parents? She gets in trouble.
Abortion is a very touchy thing. But I think legaly (not moraly) the best thing to do would be to uphold the precident of Roe v. Wade and maintain both public freedom and public order. I think that it becomes a greater health risk to women if abortions are illegalized.
Perhaps a better solution would be to make abortions safer. Require a doctors opinion before getting one. That would hopefully weed out some of the women who are using it without having a physical, mental, financial (babies are expensive!) problems with the pregnancy or has no other option.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:12 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | However, I couldn't find the second one in the article. What is it? |
| Quote: | | A separate case argued an hour before the New Hampshire appeal will tackle another contentious product of the abortion debate: protests outside medical and reproductive clinics. |
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:30 pm U |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | However, I couldn't find the second one in the article. What is it? |
| Quote: | | A separate case argued an hour before the New Hampshire appeal will tackle another contentious product of the abortion debate: protests outside medical and reproductive clinics. |
|
I'm fine with them. I think they should continue to be allowed. Freedom of speech.
And I disagree with you, Trekkie, that Roe v. Wade should be upheld. I think a new law that's much more restrictive should be made. But regardless, I think that minors should be REQUIRED to notify their parents unless abuse can be proven. Otherwise, kids should have to tell their children, unless they'd die in too soon's time. They're too young to make the decision on their own, even if they're 16. They should have to get permission from their parents beforehand, unless those two conditions are present.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:46 pm |
|
I think that requiring a doctors approval for an abortion would make it safer and more restrictive at the same time. It would be a way to screen for things like abuse, and it would give the teen someone to bounce their concerns off of. Someone who knows more than they do. The doctor will be able to talk to them about other options, about getting their parents consent, ect.
Does that make sense?
You also didn't respond to all of my post. How would they prove abuse? What if they're too afraid?
And this doesn't quite make sense to me. Can you clarify it?
| Quote: | | Otherwise, kids should have to tell their children, unless they'd die in too soon's time. |
I don't think it's a perfect solution. There is no way to make everyone happy. We have to compromise.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:59 pm |
|
Yes. It's the right thing to do to make them tell their parents. If they're too scared, tough. The purpose of checking for abuse is just so that they would be protected. They should be willing to state whether or not they would be abused. Otherwise, no dice. It could help them in other ways if the abuse was reported as well.
Even if a doctor's there, that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to do it. Unless those 2 circumstances are fit, parents must be notified. No question about it and approve. End of story.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:01 pm |
|
This isn't about what makes people 'happy', but it is about what's right, and what's wrong. While I realize this issue is never black and white, I am going to go with, in general, abortion should not be allowed. There are always exceptions though.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:20 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Yes. It's the right thing to do to make them tell their parents. If they're too scared, tough. The purpose of checking for abuse is just so that they would be protected. They should be willing to state whether or not they would be abused. Otherwise, no dice. It could help them in other ways if the abuse was reported as well.
Even if a doctor's there, that doesn't mean that they should be allowed to do it. Unless those 2 circumstances are fit, parents must be notified. No question about it and approve. End of story. |
If they're too scared, they shouldn't be turned away. The purpose of the doctor is to help determine if they are in fact being abused. And to help explain the options to them, stuff like where to go for adoption and what it would require. To explain to them why they need to tell the parents. And dertermine if they are in a position where they need assistance.
This would be for the saftey - physically and mentally - of the girl in question. You said yourself, they may be too young and too uneducated to make an informed decision. And while parents do have a major role, they may not be able to help their child process the options.
People keep saying that there are exceptions, but how do we determine what they are? Who determines? I believe that is a position that a doctor should fill. They should be able to best judge the health and situation of the person in question.
Does this make any sense?
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:27 pm |
|
In any case where a minor requires medical treatment, the parents are involved, no? That's the reason they are legally a minor, because they have not been determined emotionally and physically mature enough to make decisions as to their own status.
So abortion should not be any different from any medical or legal process that requires a minor to seek approval or guidance from parents.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:38 pm |
|
| Patient Rights and Responsiblities wrote: | VI. Confidentiality of Health Information
You have the right to talk in confidence with health care providers and to have your health care information protected. You also have the right to review and copy your own medical record and request that your physician amend your record if it is not accurate, relevant, or complete. |
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:42 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | In any case where a minor requires medical treatment, the parents are involved, no? That's the reason they are legally a minor, because they have not been determined emotionally and physically mature enough to make decisions as to their own status.
So abortion should not be any different from any medical or legal process that requires a minor to seek approval or guidance from parents. |
I agree, sure. But if they can prove abuse, I think that's an exception.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:48 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I agree, sure. But if they can prove abuse, I think that's an exception. |
If they can prove abuse in anything that involves a minor's rights versus the wishes of the parents, that is an obvious exception.
I'm pointing out that this is a non-issue in that case--that abortion really doesn't differ from anything else that requires parents' approval. The only reason it is so hotly debated is because of the other debates surrounding abortion. 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:11 pm |
|
No, it's not simply because of that. In several states in the US minors can actually get abortions without parental permission. Fact. And I believe that that is the case in Florida, as an example. Or at least one of the southeaster states.
Plus, people in other states are trying to make it that way. Radicals, but radicals often with power.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:17 pm |
|
Hmmm, if you're under the legal age to have sexual intercourse, then I think that your parents should be notified. However, in some states like Colorado that age is 15, if the pregnant female is 15 or over, I don't think that the parents should be notified without her consent.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:20 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Hmmm, if you're under the legal age to have sexual intercourse, then I think that your parents should be notified. However, in some states like Colorodo that age is 15, if the pregnant female is 15 or over, I don't think that the parents should be notified without her consent. |
She's still a minor though, and thus her parents have a legal responsibility for her, and she is undergoing a medical procedure.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:25 pm |
|
Indeed, but where is the line drawn between legal and what's accepted? If she can legally have sex at 15, then why shouldn't she also be allowed to carry the responsibilities.
Under the US Patient Rights and Responsibilities act her parents have no right to get legally involved anyway, without her consent.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:29 pm |
|
I do believe that it sould go along with the age of consent, which differs in many states. If they are a minor by the age of consent, the parents should be informed, but JUST informed. The parents should have no say in whether the girl can or cannot have the abortion.
And protests shouldn't be allowed outside these clinics. There is more evidence of violence when they are allowed. Freedom of speech only goes so far.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:29 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | Indeed, but where is the line drawn between legal and what's accepted? If she can legally have sex at 15, then why shouldn't she also be allowed to carry the responsibilities.
Under the US Patient Rights and Responsibilities act her parents have no right to get legally involved anyway, without her consent. |
Ah, well, I don't have any knowledge of what sort of legal responsibilities exactly a parent has for a minor. But I do think that parents should have a lot of responsibilities for a minor child.
The minor still has to carry the responsibilities and consequences of their actions; the parents, however, should be involved--thats what parents are for: to help us when we make mistakes.
| Link, the Hero of Time wrote: | | And protests shouldn't be allowed outside these clinics. There is more evidence of violence when they are allowed. Freedom of speech only goes so far. |
The freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of speech cannot be disallowed.
Once it goes past peaceful--to the realm of violence--then of course I support any actions taken to disband the protesters. But if they just sit there, chant loudly, and make signs . . . yeah . . . it's not that bad.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:32 pm |
|
^ Yes. But parents don't always know how to help. And some do more harm than good. Just look at all the parents who put so much pressure on their kids without listening to them that the children get into all sorts of trouble.
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:35 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: |
The freedom of peaceful assembly and the freedom of speech cannot be disallowed.
Once it goes past peaceful--to the realm of violence--then of course I support any actions taken to disband the protesters. But if they just sit there, chant loudly, and make signs . . . yeah . . . it's not that bad. |
That's how they usually start, peacefully. Then one of the "peaceful protestors" either brings out the brick or does damage to one of the doctors cars.
It's called Criminal Mischief.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:37 pm |
|
| TrekkieMage wrote: | | ^ Yes. But parents don't always know how to help. And some do more harm than good. Just look at all the parents who put so much pressure on their kids without listening to them that the children get into all sorts of trouble. |
I agree. But the only other alternative is to just disband the entire idea of a family, then.  Parents need to be involved. Some parents may not be very good at parenting, but they are all a kid has got.
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:42 pm |
|
No, there are plenty of parents and families who get things right. Thankfully more get it right than not. But I believe we had a responsibility to not shut out people just because they can't prove that they have a dysfunctional family.
It's a very difficult thing, and very hard to prove or disprove if you don't know what you're doing.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:57 pm |
|
Hey, guys, I'm not 18 yet, and so my parents have to sign off on things in order for me to get medication, etc. at school and otherwise. I think it's ridiculous to not have the same standard of parental consent for abortion--which is murder and can take a harmful toll on any woman (post-pardum(sp?) depression, for instance)--should apply. It's far more serious than getting an ibuprophen from the school nurse.
And the sex consent age in all but I believe 3 states is 16, not 15 Intrepid
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:00 pm |
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
It's even 14 in some states. Consider yourself lucky, 
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
