Tweet
Supreme Court Sidesteps Major Ruling on Abortion
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote the opinion, said the lower court chose the "most blunt remedy" in the abortion case.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a lower court was wrong to strike down New Hampshire abortion restrictions, but steered clear of a major ruling on the volatile issue.
The opinion was written by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter at the court on abortion whose retirement could start soon if the Senate confirms nominee Samuel Alito.
The New Hampshire case had been expected to be much closer at the high court.
But instead, justices ruled narrowly. They said a lower court went too far by permanently blocking the law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy.
An appeals court must now reconsider the law, which requires that a parent be informed 48 hours before a minor child has an abortion but makes no exception for a medical emergency that threatens the youth's health.
In what may be O'Connor's last ruling, she said "in this case, the courts below chose the most blunt remedy." She did say, "Under our cases it would be unconstitutional to apply the act in a manner that subjects minors to significant health risks."
The court had been asked to consider whether the 2003 law put an "undue burden" on a woman in choosing to end a pregnancy. O'Connor is an architect of the undue burden standard, and was the deciding vote in the last abortion case five years ago, when the justices ruled that a Nebraska law banning a type of late-term abortion was too burdensome. That law did not have an exception to protect the mother's health.
Instead, justices did not deal directly with that question.
The opinion, just a brief 10 pages, was a victory for New Hampshire and had been closely watched by other states with restrictions. Justices had been told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19, including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.
"In the case that is before us ... the lower courts need not have invalidated the law wholesale," O'Connor wrote. "Only a few applications of New Hampshire's parental notification statute would present a constitutional problem. So long as they are faithful to legislative intent, then, in this case, the lower courts can issue a declaratory judgment and an injunction prohibiting the statute's unconstitutional application."
No other justices wrote separately.
The case returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
Source: AP