New Hampshire Abortion Law Goes Before High Court

By Paul Strand
Washington Sr. Correspondent

CBN.com – WASHINGTON – Today, the Supreme Court hears its first abortion case in five years.

It involves whether or not parents should know if their daughter is having an abortion.

New Hampshire's attorney general is fighting in the high court to uphold her state's law requiring minors to tell a parent before they get an abortion.

She says it is not really about the basic right to an abortion.

New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte said, "Our case in no way really has a relationship to Roe v. Wade. Or will Roe v. Wade be at issue in our case." Opponents have said the law does not have an exception to protect the minor's health.

"In the case of any medical emergency, a doctor should be able to provide the treatment that a patient needs without the government getting in the way," remarked Dawn Touzin of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England

Dr. Leslie DeMars, a New Hampshire gynecologist commented, "I see this as handcuffing physicians who want to be performing appropriate, timely medical care for teens."

But Fran Wendelboe, the New Hampshire state representative who came up with the bill, says an abortionist could use a health exception to justify almost any abortion.

"To put in a health exception is too broad,” Wendelboe said. “You could literally drive a semi tractor truck through it."

Jonathan Saenz's legal group, Liberty Legal Institute, filed a brief defending New Hampshire's law. Why?

Saenz explained, "We had a father from Texas whose daughter was raped over and over again, on two different [occasions] - once when she was 12, once when she was 13; and she was impregnated by a live-in boyfriend. The parents where separated at the time, and he had to live through this tragedy of finding out, after the fact, that two abortions had been performed on his daughter."

This case is crucial because the Court is re-visiting Sandra Day O'Connor's rule that states cannot put "undue burdens" on women seeking abortions.

The interesting twist is that it is being heard while O'Connor is still on the court, but may be decided after she is gone – likely replaced by the more conservative Samuel Alito.

"Will he participate in the decision being written later on, when he is confirmed?” asked Saenz. “I've heard some people say he will, some people say he won't. I think it could really make a difference on how this case is ultimately decided."

There is another abortion-related case before the high court today. It involves whether Chicago pro-life protestors violated RICO-organized-crime laws in organizing their protests. RICO laws were originally intended to slam the Mob, not protestors.

If the Supreme Court rules against the protestors, they will have to pay damages of nearly $300,000 and 20 years of legal fees.

Translate Page