No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Abortion: Supreme Court Avoids Disturbing Abortion Precedents by Ruling on Grounds of Remedy – Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Extract
On January 18, 2006, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the constitutional challenge to New Hampshire's Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act would be remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, to determine whether the Court of Appeals could, consistent with New Hampshire's legislative intent, formulate a narrower remedy than a permanent injunction against enforcement of the parental notification law in its entirety.
In 2003, New Hampshire enacted the Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act (“The Act”). The Act specifies, in pertinent part, that “No abortion shall be performed upon an unemancipated minor or upon a female for whom a guardian or conservator has been appointed… until at least 48 hours after written notice of the pending abortion has been delivered....” The Act allows for three exceptions where a physician may perform an abortion on a minor child without parental or guardian notification.
- Type
- JLME Column
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2006
References
No. 04-1144, 2006 WL 119149 (U.S. Jan. 18, 2006) [hereinafter Ayotte].Google Scholar
Ayotte, 2006 WL 119149 at *7.Google Scholar
Id., at § 132:25(I).Google Scholar
Ayotte, 2006 WL 119149 at *2.Google Scholar
Id., at *2 (citing 10 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. at § 132:26(I)(a)(emphasis supplied)).Google Scholar
Id. (citing 10 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. at § 132:26(I)(b)).Google Scholar
Id. (citing 10 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. at § 132:26(II).Google Scholar
Id. (citing 10 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. at § 132:26(II)(b).Google Scholar
Id. (citing 10 N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. at §132:26(II)(b).Google Scholar
Id., at *2 (emphasis supplied).Google Scholar
Id., at *3.Google Scholar
Id. at *3 (quoting Planned Parenthood of Northern New England v. Heed, 296 F.Supp.2d 59, 65 (D.N.H. 2003)).Google Scholar
Id. (quoting Planned Parenthood of Northern New England v. Heed, 390 F.3d 53, 58–59 (1st Cir. 2004) [hereinafter Heed II]).Google Scholar
Id., (quoting Heed II, 390 F.3d at 65).Google Scholar
Id., at *3.Google Scholar
Id., at *6.Google Scholar
Id., at *3.Google Scholar
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 929–930 (2000) (holding Nebraska's statute prohibiting “partial-birth abortions” unconstitutional because it imposed an “undue burden” on a woman's right to choose abortion); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 878–879 (1992) (rejecting the trimester framework established in Roe v. Wade and establishing an “undue burden” test for when a State may regulate abortions while reaffirming Roe's central holding that a State may not prohibit any woman from making the decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164–165 (1973) (holding Texas' statute prohibiting abortions except for life-saving procedures unconstitutional; establishing a “trimester framework” for when a State may regulate abortions).Google Scholar
Ayotte, 2006 WL 119149 at *3.Google Scholar
Id., at *2.Google Scholar
Id., at *5.Google Scholar
Id. (internal citations omitted).Google Scholar
Id., at *5.Google Scholar
Id. (quoting Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 652 (1984)).Google Scholar
Id. (quoting Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 504 (1985)).Google Scholar
Id.(quoting Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 397 (1988)).Google Scholar
Id. (quoting Califano v. Westcott, 443 U.S. 76, 94 (1979)).Google Scholar
Id. (internal citations omitted).Google Scholar
Id., at *6.Google Scholar
Id., at *7.Google Scholar
Id., at *6–*7.Google Scholar
See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
CNN.com, Law Center, High Court Dodges Abortion Ruling, January 18, 2006, at <http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/18/scotus.abortion.ap/index.html> (last visited February 27, 2006).+(last+visited+February+27,+2006).>Google Scholar