Spousal notification.... is that the same as spousal permission?

[MissMillie]

Otherwise, why would notification be necessary?

Does anyone know the court case that struck this down... I'd like to read the opinions of the judges.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Here you are.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=833

[beyurslf]

2. The Casey case. I think it was Casey v PA.

[ElectroPrincess]

3. I'm sure someone will provide this information ...

for you.

I just want to say that MY BODY IS MY OWN. Notifying my spouse of anything should always be with MY (the woman's) consent.

:wtf:

Let's just turn back the hands of time!?!

[OKNancy]

4. From some of the commentary

I gather that he said that it didn't cause an undue burden, because although she would need to tell her husband, she could still do what ever she wanted to.

[rocktivity]

11. If the law doesn't give the husband a right to stop her, why have it?

There's no point to it. And just because the husband can't stop her legally doens't mean he wouldn't try to stop her in another way.

:headbang:
rocknation

[triguy46]

5. what if there is no "spouse"? n/t

[TomInTib]

6. Not really, but it can lead to...

"spousal-beat-the-crap-out-her".
Think about some poor, unfortunate woman in an affair having to tell her jerk husband that she is pregnant and it ain't his.

[The Doctor.]

10. Correct.

Let's say that there are too many men who might take something like that very hard.

- It's rarely the affair that causes damage, it's how people choose to react to the affair that does.


- never say 'never'.

[Fleshdancer]

15. or worse: murder

since homicide is the biggest cause of death among pregnant women, the idea isn't too far fetched unfortunately.

[crispini]

7. Legally, it may not be the same, but practially speaking,

in many cases, it might very well be.

[Wilber_Stool]

8. Take those robes and that gavel

and get the fuck out of my bedroom.

[Nikki Stone 1]

9. Read Sandra D. O'Connor's opinion on the relationship between the two

Someone has provided a link above.

[sandnsea]

12. Wives Submit

That's what I call it. It isn't "spousal", it's male husband. The idea that a woman would be required by law to tell her husband ANYTHING is beyond the pale. What next, hysterectomy, birth control? That affects a husband's reproductive "rights" too. Utter bullshit. This guy is a neanderthal.

[peacebaby3]

18. Unless something has changed, a married woman does have to get her husband

to sign a release form if she wants to get her tubes tied.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm 99.9% sure I'm right about this.

Can you believe that?!?!? Outrageous, but I think it has been that way forever.

It's quite possible that a married man might have to get his wife to sign off on him getting a vasectomy, but I'm not sure. I would find that equally as wrong.

[sandnsea]

19. No, she doesn't

Some doctors require that, but not state law, not in most places anyway.

[Kber]

21. Don't think so!

At least my doctor doesn't.

[peacebaby3]

22. I know someone this happened to in the early 90s. I can't say state by

state, but at that time here, she had to get his consent.

I don't believe it was just her doctor because we were having the conversation in the break room where I worked at the time and I was really shocked. All of the women in there with us just looked at me like I was crazy and agreed that you had to have consent. I had never heard of it before until she told me, but I also had not discussed anyone having their tubes tied before either.

[Fleshdancer]

13. Here's where you can read the opinions:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=833

Information on 3209 specifically:

3209, which commands that, unless certain exceptions apply, a married woman seeking an abortion must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband; 3203, which defines a "medical emergency" that will excuse compliance with the foregoing requirements

And here's the opinion of JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER on 3209:

2. Section 3209's husband notification provision constitutes an undue burden, and is therefore invalid. A significant number of women will likely be prevented from obtaining an abortion just as surely as if Pennsylvania had outlawed the procedure entirely. The fact that 3209 may affect fewer than one percent of women seeking abortions does not save it from facial invalidity, since the proper focus of constitutional inquiry <505 U.S. 833, 838> is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom it is irrelevant. Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that the father's interest in the fetus' welfare is equal to the mother's protected liberty, since it is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the fetus will have a far greater impact on the pregnant woman's bodily integrity than it will on the husband. Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to this Court's present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. See Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 69 . Pp. 887-898.

[Stephanie]

14. So if you have an estranged husband but are not divorced?

Then what?

[ErisFiveFingers]

24. She signs a different statement...

From the above link:

----
Section 3209 of Pennsylvania's abortion law provides, except in cases of medical emergency, that no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman without receiving a signed statement from the woman that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion. The woman has the option of providing an alternative signed statement certifying that her husband is not the man who impregnated her; that her husband could not be located; that the pregnancy is the result of spousal sexual assault which she has reported; or that the woman believes that notifying her husband will cause him or someone else to inflict bodily injury upon her. A physician who performs an abortion on <505 U.S. 833, 888> a married woman without receiving the appropriate signed statement will have his or her license revoked, and is liable to the husband for damages.
----

It was overturned, because:

----
Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry. The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power, even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual's family. These considerations confirm our conclusion that 3209 is invalid. <505 U.S. 833, 899>
----

[ehrnst]

16. Mandatory notification = mandatory involvement

Even if it isn't permission, mandatory notification will keep many women away from legal providers, and send them to illegal providers.

Just look to the results of parental notification to see how much it affects the willingness of young women to go to a medical provider.

It's a violation of medical privacy, which is a cornerstone public health policy and basic health care.

[sandnsea]

20. Women, even wives, can control their own lives

It isn't an abortion issue, it's a self-determination issue. Do young women understand that you couldn't even get a credit card without your husband's signature a few years ago. This is a pure woman's right to lead her own damned life issue, as pure as feminism ever gets.

[Fleshdancer]

17. what I want to know is what kind of written notification

was accepted. Would a handwritten note from the woman to the doctor suffice or did it have to be notarized? Was the written notice considered part of her private medical records or was made public record? What if the woman was illiterate and couldn't write a notification? Where were the notifications stored? Did anyone check with the husbands first prior prior to going ahead with the abortion?

[onenote]

23. didn't have to be notarized, but might be viewed as coercive

Lets be clear up front: this was a bad law and the correct decision was to strike it down.

But: there are a lot of posters who are discussing this law without first informing themselves about what it said. Describing it incorrectly forces the discussion off into tangents. So to be clear:

1. It required spousal notification, not permission
2. Notification could be evidenced through an unnotarized statement, but that statement had to contain an acknoledgement that a false declaration was punishable by law.
3. Spousal notification was not required if the woman seeking an abortion would declare (again, non-notarized,but with punishment threat specifically stated) that her spouse was not the father; that the spouse couldn't be located; that notifying the spouse posed a threat to the physical welfare of the mother.

Those are notable limitations, but not nearly enough to make the legislation constitutional. The problem isn't that it required "permission" -- it was that it put a stumbling block in front of the woman's exercise of her constitutional right and did so in pursuit of the much less significant rights of her husband.

onenote

[cynatnite]

25. Just about...

If a woman is required to tell her abusive husband he could do any number of things to her. Beat the hell out of her, lock her up or even kill her.

In normal relationships, it would be discussed, but there are exceptions where a woman has a real fear or if it didn't belong to her husband.

It might as well be asking permission and I'm 100% against it. It's a law that basically signs over the uterus to the man.

[sweetheart]

26. Notification of birth?

So the notification is only for abortion? and not for birth... so
to remain undominated, the woman need only carry the child to term and
then toss it off the top of the city hall building to splatter the
shoes of the government with their bloodlust.