The High Court

Supreme Court leaves abortion alone (for now)
By DEIRDRE FULTON  |  January 25, 2006

The sky didn’t fall last week when the Supreme Court handed down its first abortion-related decision with Chief Justice John Roberts in the driver’s seat. In fact, the first sentence of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion made a point of reassuring readers: “We do not revisit our abortion precedents today.”WIGGLE ROOM: the Roberts court declined to revisit abortion precedents.

At the end of November, I watched while nine Supreme Court justices, including brand-new Chief Justice Roberts, heard oral arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. The case weighed the constitutionality of a New Hampshire statute, which mandated that minors seeking an abortion get permission from one of their parents. Forty-four states (including Massachusetts) have versions of a parental-notification law. The problem was, this one didn’t have an exception for the young woman’s health. (See “Jamming with the Supremes,” News and Features, December 9, 2005.)

Here’s what I predicted at the time: “For now, it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court will strike down the entire law. A more probable outcome is that it will uphold the principle of New Hampshire’s statute, while addressing the missing exception for teenagers who are in urgent medical danger but whose lives are not at risk.”

And that’s pretty much exactly what Justice O’Connor did in the opinion she wrote for the unanimous majority.

“When a statute restricting access to abortion may be applied in a manner that harms women’s health, what is the appropriate relief? Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem. We prefer, for example, to enjoin only the unconstitutional applications of a statute while leaving other applications in force.”

Here, the court didn’t even go that far. The justices agreed that the missing health exception was problematic, but they kept their hands clean by handing the entire law back down to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, with instructions to fix the problem.

So they wiggled out of that one. But with associate-justice nominee Samuel Alito nearing what looks like an easy confirmation (at which point O’Connor will leave the court), we can count on messier battles in the future. 

Related: Choice in Court, Alito: public enemy, Alito and Co. deal a bitter blow to American women, More more >
  Topics: This Just In , John Roberts (Chief Justice), Abortion, Judiciary,  More more >
| More


Most Popular
More Information
Listen to oral arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England(mp3)
ARTICLES BY DEIRDRE FULTON
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   ALL THE WORLD'S A STAGE  |  July 24, 2014
    When three theater companies, all within a one-hour drive of Portland, choose to present the same Shakespeare play on overlapping dates, you have to wonder what about that particular show resonates with this particular moment.
  •   NUMBER CRUNCHERS  |  July 23, 2014
    Maybe instead of devoting still-more resources to food reviews, Maine’s leading news organizations should spend money on keeping better tabs on Augusta.
  •   BLUESTOCKING FILM SERIES SHOWCASES WOMEN'S STORIES  |  July 16, 2014
    Among last year’s 100 top-grossing films, women represented just 15 percent of protagonists, and less than one-third of total characters.
  •   CHECKING IN: THE NEW GUARD AND THE WRITER'S HOTEL  |  July 11, 2014
    Former Mainer Shanna McNair started The New Guard, an independent, multi-genre literary review, in order to exalt the writer, no matter if that writer was well-established or just starting out.
  •   NO TAR SANDS  |  July 10, 2014
    “People’s feelings are clear...they don’t want to be known as the tar sands capitol of the United States."

 See all articles by: DEIRDRE FULTON