Supreme Court Dodges Big Abortion Ruling

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a lower court was wrong to strike down New Hampshire abortion restrictions, dodging a major ruling.

The opinion was written by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter at the court on abortion rights.


Justices said a lower court went too far by permanently blocking the law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy.

An appeals court must now reconsider the law, which requires that a parent be informed 48 hours before a minor child has an abortion but makes no exception for a medical emergency that threatens the youth's health.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_abortion;_

[Freddie Stubbs]

Unanimously?

So, basically they ruled on the procedure of the lower court, not the constitutionality of the law. Look for this one to come back to the USSC eventually.

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. Dupe

[UpInArms]

2. US top court orders more hearings on abortion law

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-01-18T153614Z_01_N18243945_RTRIDST_0_COURT-ABORTION-UPDATE-1.XML

WASHINGTON, Jan 18 (Reuters) - A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, in its first abortion decision since 2000, sent a case back on Wednesday for more hearings on a New Hampshire law requiring notification of a parent before a minor can end her pregnancy.

"We do not revisit our abortion precedents today," retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court in the 10-page opinion. She said that invalidating the entire law, as a U.S. appeals court had done, was not always necessary or justified in cases involving medical emergencies.

O'Connor said lower courts in such cases, when considering that enforcement of a law that regulates abortion would be unconstitutional in medical emergencies, may be able to render "narrower" relief than invalidating the entire law.

Abortion has been one of the nine-member court's most contentious issues. O'Connor, a moderate conservative who has generally voted to uphold abortion rights, is expected to leave the court when her successor is confirmed by the Senate, which could happen later this month.

...more...

[rodeodance]

3. so, things are in limbo for now.

..... The New Hampshire law requires that a parent be notified 48 hours in advance of any abortion for anyone under age 18. It includes an alternative procedure of getting a judge's approval. It provides an exception when the minor's life is in danger, but not for non-life-threatening medical emergencies.

A federal judge and a U.S. appeals court declared the entire New Hampshire law unconstitutional because it lacked provisions for an exception involving a medical emergency. The law, adopted in 2003, has never been enforced.

[woodsprite]

4. Hmmm. Bouncing it back until Alito gets a chance to rule? n/t

[Tesha]

5. US Supreme Court: Striking Down Abortion Law (NH/Ayotte) Goes Too Far

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011800964.html

Court: Striking Abortion Law Goes Too Far

By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; 1:01 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court steered clear of a major ruling on
abortion Wednesday, instead giving New Hampshire a chance to save
its parental notification law.

Justices, in a rare unanimous abortion ruling, agreed that the New
Hampshire law could make it too hard for some ill minors to get an
abortion, but at the same time they were hesitant about stepping in
to fix the 2003 statute. They told a lower court to reconsider whether
the entire law is unconstitutional.

"Making distinctions in a murky constitutional context, or where
line-drawing is inherently complex, may call for a `far more serious
invasion of the legislative domain' than we ought to undertake,"
retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court.

The New Hampshire case had been expected to be much closer at the
high court.

Instead, justices found consensus on narrow grounds, that a lower
court went too far by permanently blocking the law that requires
a parent to be told before a minor daughter ends her pregnancy.

<more>

[Tesha]

6. In case you can't tell by the twisted reportage...

In case you can't tell by the twisted reportage, this isn't
good news for supporters of abortion rights. The law had been
struck down by the Boston circuit and it has now been sent
back to them by SCotUS for further work.

That is, SCotUS expects that some (most?) of the law should
be allowed to stand.

Tesha

[Tesha]

7. A Democrat helped this law stay on the books!

In yet another example of why Democrats aren't worth spit,
newly-elected Democratic Governor John Lynch could have
eliminated this law by simply not allowing the state to
contest its overturn by the Boston Circuit.

But instead, he re-appointed Ayotte, a Republican hold-over
from Craig Benson's administration and she was certain to
bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court where abortion
rights supporters just lost.

Well done, Lynchy boy! Now can you figure out why you
didn't get a campaign contribution from me?

Tesha

[bettyellen]

8. K+R> "no exception for a medical emergency that threatens the youth's

health." --
That is why this is a really big deal- it's the first time a parental notiification statute does NOT make this exception.
Young women will suffer and die as a result.

[Tesha]

9. Call up Governor Lynch and give him your opinion! (NT)

[mom cat]

10. This is why Alito must be stopped!

[Daftly]

11. This is a huge step backward for choice supporters.

How is this not a huge topic here on DU? This decision came down this mourning and I see only a hand full of replies. Have we decided that once Alito is confirmed, this is a lost battle? This is sad.

So, the parental consent law lacked a single point. The point is that is does not except in the case of medical issues. Ok, once that is in place, is this law then OK? I don't think so. It seems to me that because the law was not simply destroyed by the SCOTUS, they will allow it to stand.

Am I missing something here?

[mom cat]

13. Some people got disheartened by the MSM psy ops, But the tide

is turning. Keep up the contacts. Check these out:

Filibuster Alito!!!
Actions & Crafts!
The Democrats need to pull together and filibuster Alito's confirmation. It only takes one senator to filibuster, but it takes 40 (out of 45 Democrats, plus the spare Republican here and there), to support his/her right to do so and keep the floor open.


**CodePINK Boston's urgent call for help!**

Here are the Senators to call, with the reason we think they should be talked with (for example, Dems who voted for Roberts, Bush's last nomination, are more likely to vote for Alito as well). They are roughly prioritized, but that of course depends on your personal priorities and approach. You might want to focus on CHOICE (expected to be the biggest issue in this confirmation). All you have to say is "I'm calling to register my firm opposition to Alito's confirmation and my support for a filibuster", although of course it's fun to dress that up with a rant about your favorite issue, the threat not to vote for him/her, questions about their voting plans, etc. Ask your representatives to be corageous and represent what they have worked so hard for and to stand strong for what they believe in.

Free numbers for D.C Capitol Switchboard (they'll connect you to any Congressperson, or give you their address):

1-866-340-9281

1-866-340-9279

1-877-762-8762

1-888-355-3588

OR go to http://www.congress.org/ for easy links to contacting your own senators.

OR order a telegram to be delivered to a senator for $12.95 at congress.com!

P.S. Don't see why this is important? Review information and issues on why the Alito thing is so crucial at Save the Court.org: here


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our Favorite Democrats
to Contact to Support a Filibuster
MA: Edward Kennedy
[phone]
Boston:617-565-3170
Kennedy is doing a great job opposing Alito, and is a strong candidate to filibuster. Call and support him!

MA: John Kerry
[phone]
Boston:671-565-8519
Calling our own representatives is probably going to be the most effective!

NY: Hilary Clinton
[phone]
website: http://clinton.senate.gov/

NY: Chuck Schumer
[phone]
Schumer has also done a great job questioning Alito, and is "not ruling out" a filibuster. Call and support him!

CA: Barbara Boxer
[phone]
website: http://boxer.senate.gov/

CA: Dianne Feinstein
[phone]
Feinstein voted against Roberts and plans on voting against Alito, but was quoted by Associated Press on Sunday as saying, "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court." Call and tell her that YOU disagree with the man, and that DOES mean he shouldn't be on the court - we need a filibuster!
Update: Feinstein was quoted in the Washington Post recently saying she will not support a filibuster. Do your best to see if you can still convince her otherwise!
Update:How about also calling Sen. Diane Feinstein D-CA and telling her to stop stating self-defeating obits for the filibuster on Alito. Her husband is a big corporate guy (read as "conflict of interest") -- is Alito's long record of corporate bias a factor in her going light on Alito?

HI: Daniel Inouye
[phone]
website: http://inouye.senate.gov/
Inouye voted against Roberts, but is in the Gang of 14.

WI: Russell Feingold
202-224-5323
Feingold has said he plans to run for president in the next election. Show him he won't have your support if he supports Alito's approval!

NV: Harry Reid
[phone]
website: reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm (includes a contact form)
Reid is the Senate Minority Leader. He is not planning to filibuster as yet.

VT: Patrick Leahy
[phone]
Leahy sits on the Judiciary Committee and voted for Roberts' nomination. On the bright side, AP reported that he is standing up for the Democrats' right to delay the committee vote a day so that the Democratic caucus can meet. Call and tell him that he's on the right track but that he needs to do more - FILIBUSTER.

IL: Richard Durbin
[phone]
Durbin is the Senate Minority Whip, and he should be pulling together the Dems. But he seems unconvinced so far: "We can only afford to lose five senators favoring Judge Alito before a filibuster is impossible. It's a very tight margin, and I'm not going to presume one way or the other whether my colleagues are even interested." (1/13/06)

NJ: Robert Menendez
[phone]
Menendez is being appointed to replace Jon Corzine, and will take office January 17th - just days before the Alito vote. It will be his first important vote as a Senator, so call and tell him to make it a good one! (He's also up for re-election this year)

CT: Joseph Lieberman
[phone]
Voted for Roberts and is up for re-election in 2006. He has pledged not to support a filibuster unless under "extraordinary circumstances." Tell him this is extraordinary!

WV: Robert Byrd
[phone]
Byrd voted for Roberts and is up for re-election in 2006. He has pledged not to support a filibuster unless under "extraordinary circumstances." Tell him this is extraordinary!

AR: Mark Pryor
[phone]
Nelson voted for Roberts and has pledged not to support a filibuster unless under "extraordinary circumstances." Tell him this is extraordinary!

NM: Jeff Bingaman
[phone]
Bingaman voted for Roberts and is up for re-election in 2006

WI: Herb Kohl
[phone]
Kohl voted for Roberts and is up for re-election in 2006.

NE: Ben Nelson
[phone]
Nelson voted for Roberts and is up for re-election in 2006. He has pledged not to support a filibuster unless under "extraordinary circumstances." Tell him this is extraordinary!

CO: Ken Salazar
[phone]
Salazer voted for Roberts and has pledged not to support a filibuster unless under "extraordinary circumstances." Tell him this is extraordinary!

ND: Kent Conrad
[phone]
Conrad voted for Roberts and is up for re-election in 2006.

MI: Carl Levin
[phone]
Levin voted for Roberts and is up for re-election in 2006

These twelve Senators all voted for Roberts and are likely to be swing votes on Alito:

AR Blanche Lincoln
[phone]

ND Byron Dorgan
[phone]

CT Christopher Dodd
[phone]

OR Ron Wyden
[phone]

SD Tim Johnson
[phone]

DE Thomas Carper
[phone]

FL Bill Nelson
[phone]

WA Patty Murray
[phone]

LA Mary Landrieu
[phone]

MT Max Baucus
[phone]

WV John Rockefeller
[phone]

WI Russell Feingold
[phone]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Our Eight Favorite Moderate Republicans
To Convince to Accept a Filibuster
These have pledged not to support the "nuclear option" (changing Senate rules so that a judicial nominee filibuster could be overcome with only 51 votes):


NAME (State) PHONE EMAIL WEBSITE &
OTHER INFO
McCain (Arizona) [phone] see website http://mccain.senate.gov/
Graham (South Carolina) [phone] see website http://lgraham.senate.gov/
Warner (Virginia) [phone] see website http://warner.senate.gov/
DeWine (Ohio) [phone] see website http://dewine.senate.gov/


These have pledged not to support a filibuster unless in "extraordinary circumstances":


NAME (State) PHONE EMAIL WEBSITE &
OTHER INFO
Specter (Pennsylvania) [phone] see website
http://specter.senate.gov/

Specter is Chair of the Judiciary Committee and pro-choice.

Update: Why not also call Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee,and remind him of this quote from his 2000 book, Passion for Truth: "he Senate should resist, if not refuse to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues. In voting on whether or not to confirm a nominee, senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidate's philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidate's expressed views."
Chafee (Rhode Island) [phone] see website
http://chafee.senate.gov/

Chafee has considered switching parties, is pro-choice, and is up for re-election in 2006. He has pledged not to support the "nuclear option" (changing Senate rules so that a judicial nominee filibuster could be overcome with only 51 votes).
Collins (Maine) [phone] see website
http://collins.senate.gov/

She is pro-choice and has pledged not to support the "nuclear option" (changing Senate rules so that a judicial nominee filibuster could be overcome with only 51 votes).
Snowe (Maine) [phone] see website
http://snowe.senate.gov/

Snowe is pro-choice and up for re-election in 2006. She has also pledged not to support the "nuclear option" (changing Senate rules so that a judicial nominee filibuster could be overcome with only 51 votes).

[Judi Lynn]

12. Justices say throwing out abortion law goes too far

Jan. 18, 2006, 10:44PM
Justices say throwing out abortion law goes too far
Panel tells lower courts to fix flaw in state measure that restricts teens


By PATTY REINERT
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - In its first abortion rights ruling in more than five years, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said Wednesday that courts can fix constitutional flaws in state abortion laws instead of throwing out the laws entirely.

In a brief opinion, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said New Hampshire could salvage its law requiring minors to notify their parents before seeking an abortion if a lower court can make sure the law does not apply in cases where an abortion is necessary to protect a teenager's health.

The justices used the case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, to reaffirm earlier decisions that states can restrict abortion so long as they make an exception to protect the health of the mother. But when states fail to include that exception, the justices said, lower courts should try to cure the defect by determining what the legislature had in mind when it passed the law.

"Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem," O'Connor wrote. "In this case, the courts below chose the most blunt remedy" by blocking enforcement of the 2003 law.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3596999.html
(Free registration required)