Roberts faces first major abortion case

Recently appointed Chief Justice John Roberts will face his first major abortion case on the Supreme Court when Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood comes up before the court next week.

The case stems from a 2003 New Hampshire law requiring teenagers to tell a parent before getting an abortion. While the law has an exception for girls who would die without the procedure, New Hampshire lawmakers omitted an exception for other non-life-threatening health problems because they felt it would render the law meaningless.
The new law has never been enforced, because two federal courts have said the lack of a health exception made it unconstitutional.
…New Hampshire’s version would make it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion on a minor unless the doctor has written proof that at least one parent has been notified or unless the doctor certifies the girl would die without the procedure.
But unlike the parental involvement laws in most states, the New Hampshire statute does not explicitly let a doctor proceed when, in the doctor’s judgment, the girl might be about to suffer serious health consequences short of death.

Nice to know where some folks’ priorities are. Much better that a young girl suffers and risks her health than a parent not be immediately notified. This is disgusting.

and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

28 Comments

  1. Posted November 28, 2005 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    Women! There’s an exception for the life of the mother in the law, what else do they want? The ability to get health care when severe, possibly dehabilitating injury is immenent? They’re looking for special rights, clearly.

  2. scienceiscool
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    Doesn’t a pregnancy always carry “serious health consequences” though? I think that’s what New Hampshire is getting at when they say a health clause would render the law meaningless. To me, it’s a pretty compelling argument for a teenager’s right to make her own choice in any pregnancy, but I’m not a legislator.

  3. Lisa Flaherty
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    There is nothing wrong with this very good law. EVERY state has a statute that says no doctor can perform ANY medical procedure on a minor UNLESS the situation is “life-threatening” (a minor comes into an emergency room in life-threatening condition but the parents cannot be reached, the law ALLOWS physicians to perform whatever medical procedure is necessary to save her life).
    No minor in any state can have any elective medical work (including receive an aspirin from a school nurse) without parental permission. But the baby-killers want as many babies slaughtered as possible so they want 13 year olds who are clearly not mature enough to make any adult decisions to be able to murder their own child.
    How much baby-blood would satisfy you baby and family haters? Finally our courts are more and more in the hands of adults and soon the slaughter of innocent life will end. Someday history will look back on this period of time when the life of innocent babies had no value very harshly. It will be viewed worse than slavery or the Jim Crow years.
    Planned Parenthood says that when this year finishes they expect the average abortion patient for 2005 to average out at having received her 2.8th abortion (its an average, in other words just slightly less than third). They also say the average age of 2005 abortion patients will be right at 23. Wonderful! So these 23 year olds have already murdered THREE of their children. THREE!
    How cold and dead and shriveled does one’s heart have to be to murder your own child… much less three? A woman in my office had a miscarriage last month. She was very upset. How silly she must look to you pro-abortion people. What’s she crying over? The death of a baby? What’s the big deal? Many of you have murdered 2 or three of them…

  4. Posted November 28, 2005 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

    blah, blah, blah Lisa.
    You’re right, we’re all just murdering sluts who get preggers JUST so we can murder those cute little babies.
    Question Troll-bitch, what do you think about welfare?

  5. racya
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    “so they want 13 year olds who are clearly not mature enough to make any adult decisions to be able to murder their own child.”
    And you think a 13 year old is old enough to raise her own child alone. Not to mention the danger of someone having a child who is still undergoing puberty.

  6. Lisa Flaherty
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

    See that? Talking about innocent babies is just “blah blah blah” to “bitingbeaver”!
    Then the “Beave” asks “what do you think about welfare?” Huh? I guess the implication is if you are against murdering innocent babies you should support more and more welfare so that people like the “Beave” can NOT murder babies and get paid for it.
    Nooooo, Beave. I believe in the initial and once-proud tenets of true feminism. I believe that women are just as smart and capable as men. I believe that we should be treated equally and also be held equally responsible for ourselves and our decisions. If a woman’s only choice when she becomes pregnant is the murder of her baby or having everyone else who works and lives responsibly pay her bills for her then she (ready for this, to modern day feminists this is a very radical proposal) SHOULD KEEP HER LEGS CLOSED IF SHE ISN’T EMOTIONALLY AND FINANCIALLY PREPARED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY POSSIBLE RESULTS OF HER ACTION.
    Isn’t that a revolutionary thought? That women if they seek equality should also be prepared to be FULLY responsible for their actions?
    Its funny how feminists are always willing to scream about men not paying their child support (which is reprehensible, though the percentage of women under child support payments who don’t pay is about 50% higher than men)but want everyone else to pay their bills because they couldn’t keep their legs closed.
    Don’t take a job you cannot do. Don’t incur a debt you cannot pay. Don’t accept any responsibility in life that you cannot meet. Meaning that the opening of your vagina for some guy who bought you a beer in the corner tavern means you are willing to be responsible for the potential outcome. Being responsible means neither murdering the innocent resulting child or expecting everyone else who run their lives with prudency to have to pay your way.
    Is this so much to ask? Don’t murder your own children and pay you own way. Watch how offended many of you are going to be at that idea…

  7. RowanCrisp
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    The best way to take care of trolls is to ignore them.
    *shrug*

  8. Lisa Flaherty
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 3:41 pm | Permalink

    Hey “racya”:
    Your questions reveal the bankruptcy of your position. First of all a 13 year old shouldn’t be fucking, period. The fact that goofy modern day feminism has only succeeded in making women’s pussies MORE available for casual access to men is ridiculous.
    So your query about whether or not I think a 13 yr old can raise a child is asinine. Of course she probably isn’t. But this is your excuse for the murder of the innocent child? There are plenty of people in their 30′s and 40′s who cannot properly raise a child, should their children be murdered?
    Then you try the ridiculous argument that supposedly girls going through puberty are at risk for pregnancy. Medical science says once a woman can get pregnant her risk from the pregnancy INCREASES with AGE. But more importantly, your lust for baby blood is obsuring your reason. So lets pretend that a young mother is at some risk from her pregnancy. Now you argue that the certain murder of her baby is preferable to a slim chance of a complication for the mother who knowingly CHOSE to risk pregnancy?
    Everytime you take your child somewhere in a car there is a risk of injury or death to you from a car accident (a rish MANY times higher than pregancy risks by the way). Is it your argument that a woman facing driving her child somewhere should just murder her child to avoid the possibility of risk???
    Do you see how little you wild-eyed abortionistas are? This holocaust of babies in our culture is making many of you completely numb to death. Every day thousands of innocent babies are taken to an abortion mill BY THEIR MOTHERS THE VERY PERSON WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING THEM and some “doctor” scrambles the babies brains and sucks the damage out of the woman’s body and throws it in the garbage. And many of you are becoming used to it and numb to it.
    It was like that famous quote from the Mayor of Auschwitz (the actual Village next to Auschwitz Concentration Camp where almost 900,000 human beings were slaughtered by the Nazis). When he finally admitted that he “probably” knew what was going on there he said, “But they were only Jews.”
    You abortion-lovers hear of the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies and you shrug your shoulders and say, “But its only babies”.
    Thankfully, these days of horror are about to be brought to a close. Now women should think about themselves and their health and the possibility of pregnancy BEFORE spreading their legs. That sounds pretty adult, intelligent and FEMINIST to me…

  9. racya
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    “I believe that we should be treated equally and also be held equally responsible for ourselves and our decisions.”
    This is one case where eqaulity is physically impossible. When a man gets a woman pregnant he can walk away and never deal with the consequences. A woman has to make the extremely difficult discission whether to have the baby or to go through the painful and costly abortion. These problems are compounded in the case of pregnant teens. Is a teenage boy likely to stick around and do the responsible thing. Unlikely. Are the girl’s parents going to help, or chose to abandon her. Cought pregnant, unemployed with no job skills, how would you “pay your own way”.

  10. Lisa Flaherty
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    “Rowancrisp” at least is honest. What he or she is saying is “When you know we are wrong about supporting the slaughter of innocent children and there is really no justification for it all we can do is just ignore the truth and the facts and ignore the person confronting us with the truth.”
    There is no situation a pregnant mother can be in where keeping the child is not the best option. If anything, the child can be put up for adoption. Millions and millions of anxious qualified parents who cannot have children of their own go without children.

  11. racya
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

    “your lust for baby blood is obsuring your reason.”
    Your right I enjoy a nice helping of baby blood over my corn flakes every morniong.
    And embryonic stemcells make a delightful seasoning over my baby brain casserole.

  12. Lisa Flaherty
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    “Racya”:
    EVERY state in this country has programs of combined care for pregnant women who cannot provide for themselves (though I notice how you completely missed the most important aspect of this: if they cannot support themselves and aren’t prepared for the potential of pregnancy why are their legs splied open for any takers???). EVERY state has immediate aid and EVERY state even has housing programs for pregnant adult women. Pregnant Teenagers on their own have even more options available to them: all of which include medical care, food, housing, etc.
    No matter how much you enjoy the thought of these babies being slaughtered there is NO justification for it. I have never met ANY supporter of abortion who wasn’t also harboring at least a latent hatred of family and men. Even Planned Parenthood in their 2004 Annual Report pointed out that due to pressure from financial supporters they had stepped up their efforts to suggest adoption to those who sought abortions. In that report Planned Parenthood expressed “disappointment and exasperation at the number of women who said they preferred abortion to adoption because they didn’t like the idea of someone else raising their child”.
    HUH? In other words “I’m not keeping my child so I am going to murder it so no one else can raise it.”
    Abortion is about hatred. It isn’t about protecting women (52% of aborted babies are female), it isn’t about anything other than the hatred of family and the failure of that woman to be responsible for herself.
    I thought we were women and we were strong. Why spread your legs if you aren’t prepared for the outcome?????

  13. Jessica
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Lisa, your whole “leg spreading” insult is not only sooo tired, but it (along with your various other personal attacks and ranting) goes against our comments policy. If you’d like to continue to comment here you need to cut out the name-calling, etc. I doubt you’ll be able to do this, since your entire anti-choice argument is about calling women murderers and whores, but I always give a warning before booting someone off the site.
    Now back to my leg spreading…

  14. Posted November 28, 2005 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    Instead of all this emotion let’s look at the actual text of ROE.
    (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
    Seems to me this part says it is all about the woman and her MD, As it should be!
    (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
    See the comment from above. Again, as it should be,
    (c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
    Emphasis added. Now this is the part that is difficult, as it clearly says …for the life or health of the mother. This has been so stretched by the “pro-choice” group to mean just about anything. The part I have issue with is that anyone who uses a rational mind, who thinks that during the 3rd trimester that the being inside your womb is anything other that a human and fully capable of life is lying to themselves and the rest of us. The 3rd trimester is used for nothing more than making it easier for that child to make the transition to living outside of it’s protective place. I personally think that Roe is crappy law, as it seems clear that the 9th and or 10th amendments could have been used to make a better argument for a right to privacy, instead of some “penumbra” of Griswold. Finally, if you think roe is such a great thing think about who has benefited from it at least as much as women claim they have… That would be men, as now those who are scum don’t have to worry about that responsibilty anymore either. do you think it is mere coincidence that one of the largest single supporters of roe is males age 18-35?

  15. Kelz
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    Dear Lisa,
    You suck at life.
    Sincerely,
    The “baby-blood” desiring, “family hat[ing]“, “cold and dead and shriveled” hearted, “innocent babies” hating, never mind i got tired of quoting your rediculous attempts at emotional appeal.
    So… love, the baby killer.

  16. Lisa Flaherty
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    Attilla:
    Interesting post. You posted:
    (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.
    The whole abortion issue is just like the slavery issue. The supporters of slavery and the supporters of abortion are moral siblings. Both of their arguments always ignore the people most being affected by their position. Slavery arguments never contemplated the opinion of or the affect on the actual slave and abortion arguments never contemplate the opinion of or the affect on the baby.
    It’s like the clause you posted (which I reposted above)above. It would be fine law with one minor change:
    (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician AND THE MEDICAL JUDGMENT OF THE UNBORN CHILD’S ATTENDING PHYSICIAN. Pp. 163, 164.
    Millions and millions of babies have been slaughtered as a result of this horrible law. All that death and gruesome massacre and what have we gained? Millions of women negatively affected psychologically for life. Millons of people who have become more and more numb to life and the sanctity of life. Millions of willing and capable and loving parents have been denied children to be adopted.
    Oh, of course, some women didn’t have to have stretch marks or face any kind of inconvenience during the appoximate 6 or 7 months pregnancy is actually manifested. “Hey, my irresponsibility resulted in a child and now I might get stretch marks??? MURDER THE DAMN BABY!”

  17. Lisa Flaherty
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    Jessica:
    You are obviously searching for justification to boot me off this site. Bizarrely you claim it is because I call abortion “murder” (how is it not? If you don’t have the abortion the baby lives. If I don’t shoot someone in the head, they live!) and refer to not “spreading your legs”.
    How is this insulting other than you just disagree with my position? Abortion supporters have NEVER been able to defend their position in rational debate. For one reason: they just think its fine to murder a baby if its just inconvenient at that time for the mother. That’s the whole argument. Abortion opponents think that inconveniece is a very poor argument for the murder of human life. You guys think if a human is too small to fight back and not yet old enough to voice disagreement its okay to murder that child. We disagree.
    You want to ban me because you hate being wrong and not being able to justify your position. Notice above that “bitingbeaver” in her post referred to me as a “bitch”. I don’t see you threatening to ban her (or him?).
    Your fear of me stating the truth here only emphasizes the wrongness of your support for abortion.
    There is NO logical or intelligent argument for the murder of another. Some would argue — not me — that it is okay to murder a criminal, because they are not innocent.
    What fascinates me about most liberals is that they are vehemently opposed to the death penalty — the murder of a horribly guilty person — but they are in favor of the murder of INNOCENT unborn children.
    Remember, the only reason some of you kill your babies is because it can’t fight back…
    Ban me if you want. But read the papers and the mood of America… the murder of innocent babies is about to end…

  18. Jessica
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    lisa, i don’t need justification. it’s my site. i was merely informing you of our comments policy. and you’re correct to say that BB also used a personal insult, but it hardly compared to your continued insults and absuive diatribes.
    if you wanted to explain your position in a way that didn’t use abusive language you would be welcome to stay. it’s really that simple.

  19. Posted November 28, 2005 at 5:25 pm | Permalink

    Additionally, though I’m sure that this will just generate more pointless spite, in what way is a clump of cells a ‘baby’? Third trimester abortions aren’t legal, unless it’s to save the mother’s life or health. Offer a logical argument why a first trimester embryo is even a ‘baby’ before you go into an infanticide rant.
    Any arguments regarding brain function should clearly indicate that the embryo has more brain function than, say, a cow or a pig, or else, I hope you are a rather strict vegetarian.

  20. Posted November 28, 2005 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    Lisa, you’re mixing all sorts of hyperbolically ridiculous arguments in with whatever it is you feel, and then calling women who have abortions sluts for really no good reason. I’m pro-choice because I think that the interests of a full-grown woman outweigh the interests of a zygote. I really do think this. I don’t have a particular thirst for fetal blood, I think babies are adorable, and there are plenty of men I love (including my husband). If you’re not going to accept my statement of my beliefs, then you’re not arguing with me – you’re arguing with your insane concept what a pro-choice advocate is. You might not get so high on self-righteousness when you realize that people who disagree with you have reasons for doing so, but I’ll bet it would lower your blood pressure.

  21. Jennifer Hurlbert
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    This is always my question to anti-abortionists: Have you adopted an unwanted child? And EVERY TIME, the answer has been NO. Until you are willing to take on the responsibility of these unwanted children yourself, then you forfeit your right to question my decision regarding said child.

  22. Posted November 28, 2005 at 8:52 pm | Permalink

    Jennifer, are you aware that there are waiting lists for infant adoptions?

  23. Brite
    Posted November 28, 2005 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    There are waiting lists for healthy white infants, but group homes are overflowing with adoptable foster kids.

  24. Ahlana
    Posted November 29, 2005 at 2:54 am | Permalink

    Ok Lisa,
    What about the women who didn’t “spread their legs” for some guy or who didn’t agree to a sexual act which resulted in their pregnancy? Do you think they should have to carry to term the seed planted by a violent criminal act? Should they be financially responsible for the child is they decide (or are forced) to keep it? What if the rapist was a relative (their father for example).
    And back to the welfare argument. You don’t support welfare because women should have to take responsibility for their actions. But isn’t that just punishing the child to a life of poverty and want because you have some weird notion of self-reliance that you are imposing on the mother? Why punish the child for the “leg spreading” of the mother?
    Chances are you and the other posters (myself included) will never agree because we see a fetus as a fetus (zygote, collection of cells, etc) and you see it as a baby. I can’t convince you that because it can’t live on it’s own that I believe it to be parasitic and I shouldn’t be forced to carry it for 9 months and then give birth to it if I don’t want to. You can’t convince me that if I have an abortion in the first trimester that I’m killing a baby. I don’t believe that a fetus has a soul and therefore killing it is not murder for the same reason that killing a cow is not murder.
    You can’t have your cake and eat it too. No matter how much you rant people will continue to have sex and (as long as contraception is as unreliable or hard to obtain or expensive as it is) there will be unwanted pregnancies. If you are truly worried about the number of abortions then you should work to make the world more “baby friendly” by working for equal wages for women, subsidized day care, universal health care, and better welfare programs so that women will be economically able to raise their children. and you should be working toward better, cheaper, more easily available birth control methods that way there would be fewer accidental pregnancies in the first place. Women don’t get abortions because they like to. Work to make them less common. Because you CAN’T make people stop having sex you should work to make the consequences less harmful for the babies… that is, if you are truly worried about the babies and not just about standing on a soap box and calling women leg spreading whores.
    Oh, and the woman you know who had a miscarriage – that sucks. I don’t think she’s silly, I feel bad for her because she *wanted* her pregnancy and that’s a terrible event to have happen.
    And the state programs you reference that are so great for pregnant women? The vast majority of those programs (excluding things like WIC) drop off after the woman has the baby leaving a new mother struggling to balance her new role as mother and attempting to get everything together so that she can get a job. Not that you seem to care about people after they are born…
    If we just shoved people back into a womb, would you care about their wellbeing then?

  25. Posted November 29, 2005 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Over 18 abortion should be a private matter, whether people think it is morally right or wrong. What business is that of anyone?
    But under 18 (or some reasonable age) should be a family and community matter. At some age from 11 to 18, there has to be some type of system that involves the parent. If a parent can be held accountable for neglect of a child under 18, then a parent should be able to get notification of an under 18 (or some age child or teen) when they are about to do something medically and socially important in their personal lives.
    However, I understand why this is a very touchy type of issue. When the religious right gets this one, they will use it as precedent to go after many other cases and invade the privacy wall in other past rulings that have been set up to protect women’s rights to privacy.

  26. Liberal Grrl
    Posted November 29, 2005 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Lisa’s vitriolic, misogynistic, and irrational rants caused me to look her up a bit. Following her email to its source, I find that she is employed/volunteers at/or is in some other way affiliated with American Spirit Newspapers; The Newspaper of Spiritual Awareness. Some of the articles on the site include Symbology of the Christmas Tree which purports that the tree represents the “Represents the Living Christ, The Nervous System” and that the lights represent “Represent the spirits or beings who passed on that had the same type of body you have and are still attached to you.” These assertions by Rev. William Duby are completely detached from the actual anthropology that actually makes up these symbols. The site maps lead to links such as “Jesus was Psychic” and “Clairvoyant Training Program”.
    Not that I ever want to fault someone for their belief system, however, it appears that Lisa’s affiliation points to a divorce from both science and traditional Christianity and that her views are perhaps filtered through a prism that the rest of us don’t necessarily see through. It is unfortunate but I think that what I have found through this small slice of her is that she is going to be unreachable through logical and realistic, pragmatic argument and it is best to not let her foul and hateful words upset you. I apologize if this information constitutes a “personal attack” but I felt that as a whole people should understand who they are arguing with.
    The links to Lisa’s affiliation can be found below.
    http://www.americanspiritnews.com/
    http://www.celestia.com/sitemap.htm
    BTW, I have to add that repression of even a young girl’s need to have an abortion is reprehensible. That no one has the right to moralize for anyone and that the complexities of relationships and sex are unique and individual to all participants. That to finger point and name call women and girls is selfish, self-centered, and arrogant. Until you have lived life as a poor woman with too many children, a young girl who has no REAL education about birth control, a teenager looking to escape oppressive parents, and on and on how can you decide what sexual decisions they make that are right or wrong? Withholding sexual education, perpetuating poverty through a warped sense of “personal responsibility”, and demonizing young girls (but I notice not young boys) for their innate sense of sexuality is in fact increasing the instances of abortion. The Religious Right always operates under the premise that information about sex will lead to more sexual activity. No study has EVER upheld this as fact. But they are real big on science any way. This policy, based on theocracy, in the public sphere is hurting our young girls. This is why we NEED a separation of church and state and our public institutions and laws MUST be based on secularism.
    Thank you for your time!

  27. Posted November 29, 2005 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    Lisa. No I don’t think that a fetus at anything less than 26 weeks has a MD for it’s care. Women go to see an ob/gyn. a pediatrician is not seen nor needed until after the child is born. I further think that because you are so emotional about the issue you are one of thos epeople on the Right side of the spectrum that piss off those of us who are rational and in the middle. You are a zealot, pure and simple. You change no ones mind. Hence you have no influence over change. You may sound good to your fellow zealots but that is the point isn’t it?
    And I think that those who fail to recognize that after 26 weeks that the sentiant being inside a womans womb is a little more than a conglomeration of tissue and thus hold onto the equally tenous position to Lisa’s. It is those same folks who really believe that a “partial birth” abortion is the best way to save a mothers life, when in fact as a medical professional I can tell you a c-scection is much faster. But then with a c-section there is always the chance that the little bugger will actually be born alive.
    That is all.

  28. Kelz
    Posted November 29, 2005 at 9:33 pm | Permalink

    I don’t know about yall but my SOLE purpose of spreading my legs is so I can have abortions.
    I love me some abortions.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

187 queries. 0.673 seconds