Anyone understand Supreme Court's Abortion ruling today?

[DuaneBidoux]

I know it was 9-0 but haven't made it to a tv or other sources of info. What's the scoop?

[Horse with no Name]

1. They didn't rule on the actual case

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a lower court was wrong to strike down New Hampshire abortion restrictions, but steered clear of a major ruling on the volatile issue.

The opinion was written by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter at the court on abortion whose retirement could start soon if the Senate confirms nominee Samuel Alito.

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

But instead, justices ruled narrowly. They 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.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/011906dnnatcourt.14e017a4.html

[DuaneBidoux]

2. thanks

[welshTerrier2]

4. fwiw, here's my take ...

i'm no lawyer so fwiw:

a lower court had struck down the NH law that required a minor to notify her parents before she could obtain an abortion ... the lower court did this because the parental notification was required even in cases where a medical emergency existed ...

the Supreme Court sent the case back down to the lower court arguing that just because the law did not have a provision for emergencies did NOT mean the entire law should be invalidated ... in other words, they were asking the lower court to make a determination on the notification issue where no emergency was present ... it was a very narrow ruling that focussed more on allowing parts of the law to stand even if one part was struck down ...

my read is that the Supremes did not want to use this case to rule on parental notification issues or that they did not want to address the specifics of the case until the lower court had addressed the law absent the emergency provisions ... they passed on the case based more on a technical point of law than on the merits of parental notification ...

i have no idea if my interpretation is right but that's what i got out of the story ...

[Innocent Smith]

3. They punted it back down

It'll most probably come back up in one of the next terms.

[Punkingal]

5. This kind of reminded me of Bush V Gore....

They sent it back to FL Supreme Court once, then they ruled on it when it came back.

[Horse with no Name]

6. Got this in my email today from Planned Parenthood

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted unanimously to send
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, et al.
back to the lower federal courts.

The decision is troubling because the court's ruling ducked an
opportunity to reaffirm the longstanding constitutional
principle that no abortion restriction can endanger a woman's
health. This only intensifies our concerns about Supreme Court
nominee Samuel Alito, because we certainly can expect this
question to be revisited in future cases before the court. And
we cannot have Samuel Alito making that decision.

As advocates for reproductive freedom, we are extremely troubled
by the prospect of Judge Samuel Alito joining the U.S. Supreme
Court. If confirmed, Alito will replace Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor, a strong leader on the court who recognized the
importance of women's health. Replacing her moderate
conservative voice with Alito's extremist one does not bode well
for the future of women's health and reproductive rights.

We hope the lower court will strike down this dangerous law when
it considers the case again. Now we must do everything in our
power to keep Alito off the Supreme Court, before another case
like this is heard.