By BEN CARTER
The Supreme Court was asked last week to determine whether state laws requiring parental knowledge of abortions for pregnant minors must include explicit exceptions for situations in which the minor's health is in danger.
The case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, is centered around a New Hampshire law that requires physicians to inform at least one parent of a pregnant minor 48 hours before performing an abortion on the minor.
Planned Parenthood argued in the trial court that the law didn?t provide an adequate exception for situations in which the health of the mother is in danger. The trial court and the appellate court agreed.
The state of New Hampshire argued in their brief for the Supreme Court that there is a provision built into the law that allows pregnant minors to seek a judicial bypass in the event that a health issue arises and parents can?t be notified in time. The brief indicates that the courts are open 24 hours a day to grant bypasses.
?In an emergency, a woman needs to go to the hospital, not a courthouse,? attorneys for Planned Parenthood said their brief.
Lynn D. Wardle, a BYU law professor said the constitutionality of requiring parental notification before performing an abortion has been well established. What is at issue in this case is whether exceptions for health issues have to be specifically spelled out in the law.
In previous cases courts have ruled that exceptions don?t have to be spelled out explicitly, but can be granted based on judicial interpretation of the law. Wardle said in 1981 a Utah statute said parental consent must be given for abortions for minors, if possible. There was no explicit detailing of exceptions but the courts upheld the language of the statute anyway.
In the case of the New Hampshire law, requiring explicit exceptions in the law may be unnecessary.
?Never in the history of New Hampshire has there ever been a minor seeking an abortion who had a health emergency,? Wardle said. ?So it?s hardly the kind of general exception that you need to spell out in the statute.?
Attorneys for New Hampshire argued in their brief that requiring parental notification actually protects the minors? health as much as any exception.
?New Hampshire?s Act promotes compelling state interests, not the least of which is protecting the health of the pregnant minor by providing an opportunity for parents to supply essential medical history information to the physician.?
Wardle agreed that medical history information is essential to physicians performing abortions.
?Is the 15-year-old likely to know her medical history?? Wardle asked. ?In most cases the parents are going to be much more aware of their health history and the health circumstances of the child than any other people.?
Wardle said the decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood probably won?t have a direct effect on Roe v. Wade, but if Planned Parenthood wins, (which he thinks they will) in the future, states will have to spell out exceptions to parental notification laws.
Wardle also said he doesn?t think the presence of new Chief Justice John Roberts on the Court will make a significant difference on how the Court rules on abortion cases.
? Rehnquist was no less opposed to abortion than Roberts is,? he said. ?Roberts isn?t going to change the vote one iota.?