A Good Sign On Chief Justice John Roberts?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Abortion, Supreme CourtFirst, some background.
It’s the middle of the night in New Hampshire, and a teenager, afraid to tell her parents she is pregnant, appears at an emergency room. A doctor diagnoses a spike in blood pressure that won’t kill the girl but could render her sterile unless she has an immediate abortion. The doctor calls a judge for permission to perform the procedure, as state law prescribes — and voice mail answers.
Now, the NH law states that a minor has to get parental consent, unless it’s overridden by a judge. Obviously this doesn’t apply in this case since the doctor got voicemail.
So, what to do?
John Roberts’ offers a solution…
Leading the search for a middle ground was the court’s newest member, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who repeatedly suggested that the court could send the case back to lower courts for a narrower challenge to the law as it applies to emergencies such as the one Breyer outlined.“Presumably the litigation would be very similar to what we’ve seen in this case,” he told a lawyer representing Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, “but it would be focused on the provision that is causing you concern, rather than the statute as a whole.”
The lawyer, Jennifer Dalven of the American Civil Liberties Union, urged the court to uphold the appeals court’s invalidation of the entire New Hampshire law and leave it to the state legislature to make any changes.
“If this court rewrites it,” she said, “it will give a green light to legislatures around the country to pass broad restrictions, and leave it to women and doctors to go to court and be the sole defenders of the right.”
An interesting perspective and one that bears some consideration. Sure, NH law would probably allow for such a procedure to take place, but Roberts seems to understand the consequences could be particularly upsetting.
In any event, this is one to watch.
UPDATE:
More from the NY Times.
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 1st, 2005 and is filed under Abortion, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
