The Supremes Take on Abortion

And I'm not sure we'll be better for it.

This, from The Times:

The Supreme Court today accepted its first abortion case in five years, an unexpected development that, despite the rather technical questions the case presents, is likely to add even more heat to the already super-heated atmosphere surrounding the court and its immediate future.

The new case is an appeal by the state of New Hampshire of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down a parental-notification requirement for minors seeking abortions.

The Supreme Court has dealt with parental-notice statutes for many years, and has upheld those that contain safeguards for minors, including the option of bypassing the notice requirement by going before a judge. This case does not require the court to revisit those precedents.

Rather, it presents two questions that the court has not previously addressed in the context of parental-notice laws. One is whether such laws must explicitly provide an exception for minors whose continued pregnancy is a threat to their health. The other is what standard courts should use in evaluating a judicial challenge to abortion laws that like the New Hampshire law, enacted in 2003, have yet to take effect.

With Noni Scalia hell-bent (and yes, I chose this term carefully rather than casually) with becoming the Chief Justice - and if I were Rehnquist, I wouldn't accept any food or water from his Associate - I wouldn't put it past him to use this case as a way to make the Bushies very happy just in case they go for Thomas instead.

With that said, however, I am legimately concerned about the Supremes suddenly accepting this case as this time.

Yet let me add one more thing. While I believe very much in a woman's right to choose - and, like most people including the overwhelming majority of pro-choice advocates, I do not like that abortions happen - I am NOT opposed to parental notification. Parents must be notified of just about every medical procedure performed on a minor, and abortion is a medical procedure.

But unlike many others, to me, notification is just that: notification. It doesn't necessarily give the parents veto power over the child's desire to terminate a pregnancy. Nor should it. So what should happen if a girl wants an abortion and her parents say no? Good question. I'm not sure one answer fits all but I do not believe a woman - even a minor - should be forced to carry a child to term if she chooses not to do so. Likewise, if a girl becomes pregnant, I don't think parents should be able to force her to abort.

Many parents of 15-17 year olds are parents in name only; these kids no longer live at home or are supported by their parents. In such cases, I don't feel that notification is an absolute requirement. To keep such minors from obtaining an abortion because a parent who doesn't support them says no would be ludicrous.