Pittsburgh Post-Gazette - Supreme Court to Hear Abortion Appeal; Parental Notice Center of Dispute

May 24, 2005
By Michael McGough, Post-Gazette National Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday returned to the volatile issue of abortion and agreed to decide whether states must provide a "health exception" to laws requiring a parent to be notified when a minor daughter seeks an abortion.

The justices will hear New Hampshire's appeal of a decision by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston that struck down the state's parental notification law. That law says than an abortion cannot be performed on a minor until 48 hours after her parent or guardian is notified in writing that she is seeking the procedure.

The law provides exceptions if the abortion is necessary to save the minor's life, as well as a "bypass" procedure under which a judge can determine that it is in the girl's best interests not to notify her parents. But the appeals court invalidated the law because it does not provide a waiver of notification when delay might harm a girl's health.

"The Constitution requires a health exception even when the state's interest in regulation is compelling," the appeals court said, citing a 2000 ruling in which the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska law banning "partial birth abortion" because the statute didn't provide an exception for abortions necessary to preserve the woman's health.

In taking the New Hampshire case, the justices will have to reconcile its insistence on a "health exception" with a 1990 decision in which it upheld a Minnesota parental-notification law that had no health exception.

In its decision, the appeals court suggested that the Minnesota ruling had to be read in light of later decisions establishing a "health exception" for regulations of abortions performed on adults.

The high court's agreement to hear the New Hampshire case came as something of a surprise. In March it declined to hear an appeal by Idaho of an appeals court decision striking down that state's parental-notification law because of an inadequate health exception.

Conservative groups welcomed yesterday's announcement that the court will review the New Hampshire decision.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson, said: "The Supreme Court has a very important opportunity to ensure that parents are informed about the health of their children -- especially when it comes to abortion. It is the parents who have a responsibility to be directly involved in decisions involving the health and well-being of their children."

But Karen Pearl, interim president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said she was surprised and disappointed that the court took the case. Still, Pearl said, "We are confident that this court will reaffirm a woman's right to abortion access. States should never put women's health at risk."

Coincidentally, the Bush nominee to the appeals court whose candidacy was at the center of the filibuster controversy that Senate moderates appeared to solve last night is opposed by Democrats largely because of her opinion in a case involving abortion and parental notification.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, nominated to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, dissented in a 2000 case in which a majority of her colleagues -- including current U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- allowed a minor to receive an abortion without notifying a parent.