US Supreme Court abortion ruling could be O'Connor's last

[bigtree]

US court wants abortion hearings
From: Reuters
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17868331-23109,00.html

January 19, 2006

A UNANIMOUS US Supreme Court, in its first abortion decision since 2000, sent a case back overnight for more hearings on a New Hampshire law requiring notification of a parent before a minor can end her pregnancy.

"We do not revisit our abortion precedents today," retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the court in the 10-page opinion. She said that invalidating the entire law, as a US appeals court had done, was not always necessary or justified in cases involving medical emergencies.

Judge O'Connor said lower courts in such cases, when considering that enforcement of a law that regulates abortion would be unconstitutional in medical emergencies, may be able to render "narrower" relief than invalidating the entire law.

The New Hampshire law requires that a parent be notified 48 hours in advance of any abortion for anyone under age 18. It includes an alternative procedure of getting a judge's approval. It provides an exception when the minor's life is in danger, but not for non-life-threatening medical emergencies.

A US federal judge and an appeals court declared the entire New Hampshire law unconstitutional because it lacked provisions for an exception involving a medical emergency. The law, adopted in 2003, has never been enforced.

[bowens43]

1. The decision was unanimous.

So I don't understand your title.

[bigtree]

2. whatever

[bigtree]

3. It could be argued that the ruling actually narrowed abortion rights

by putting a limit on sweeping lower court rulings which seek to throw out overly restrictive abortion regulations.

It could also be that O'Connor's ruling gives federal courts authority to rewrite abortion laws under the pretext of tailoring them to whatever doctrine they recognize.


the opinion:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/18jan20061100/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1144.pdf

oral argument:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-1144.pdf