In what may be O'Connor's last ruling of career-SC-Dodges Big Abortion Rul

[kpete]

Supreme Court Dodges Big Abortion Ruling By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a lower court was wrong to strike down New Hampshire abortion restrictions, steering clear of a major ruling on whether such laws place an undue burden on women.


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.

In what may be O'Connor's last ruling of her career, she said "in this case, the courts below chose the most blunt remedy."

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

[napi21]

1. Unanimous ruling! WOW. Are the RW's going to be pi**ed at

their new boy AND at Scalia & Thomas too? I'm glad to see the ruling, but also a bit surprised!

[joeybee12]

4. Um, actually the court ruled that the appeals court was wrong in

striking down the restrictions; in other words, they ruled wrongly on getting rid of the parental notification law. It's not surprising the Gang of Three ruled this way, but since it was unanimous, I can only assume that the others saw some technical reason to send the case back.

[snippy]

5. It appears that they are too stupid to understand the decision.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1560281/posts

Probably the result of diminished intellectual capability due to their coprophagia.

[rodeodance]

2. it was, if I can us the term--a technical decision, as 'undue burden' was

not addressed.

The court had been asked to consider whether the 2003 law put 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 the justices ruled that a Nebraska law banning a type of late-term abortion was too burdensome. That law did not have an exception to protect the mother's health.

Instead, justices did not deal directly with that question.

The opinion, just a brief 10 pages, was a victory for New Hampshire and had been closely watched by other states with restrictions. Justices had been told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19, including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.

"In the case that is before us ... the lower courts need not have invalidated the law wholesale," O'Connor wrote. "Only a few applications of New Hampshire's parental notification statute would prevent a constitutional problem. So long as they are faithful to legislative intent, then, in this case, the lower courts can issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the statute's unconstitutional application."

[papau]

3. So the RW right to life crowd wins one - but the Appeals Court may still

stop the NH anti-abortion/anti-choice law.

[cali]

6. No, they didn't win one.

Neither side won. Essentially what the court said was that they shouldn't have thrown the law out wholesale; they should have addressed the undue burden parts of the law, i.e., the no health exception clause. If I had to put money on it, I'd bet that the no health exception part will be found to be unconstitutional. It's possible that NH will then appeal to the SC.

[papau]

7. Someday I will learn how the Court got a line item veto! :-)

:-)

[f-bush]

8. Chickenshits!!!