Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

November-29-05

Supreme Court Preview: Ayotte v Planned Parenthood

The Supreme Court tomorrow will hear arguments in a case involving a challenge to a New Hampshire parental notification law for women under the age of 18 seeking an abortion. The law makes it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion on a minor without waiting 48 hours after a parent or legal guardian has been notified. The law is being challenged by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, two clinics (the Concord Feminist Health Center and the Feminist Health Center for Portsmouth), and Dr. Wayne Goldner because it does not include an exception to preserve the health of a young woman under 18. The law does include a judicial bypass option, but no exception for medical emergencies that can’t wait for a judge’s ruling.

Women’s health and rights advocates are also concerned that both the state of New Hampshire and the United States Solicitor General (representing the Bush Administration) are asking the Supreme Court to apply a new legal standard in this case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. They are arguing that no lawsuits should be able to be filed to block enforcement of a new law; rather, the courts should refuse to hear so-called “hypothetical” cases and should wait until an actual harm has been inflicted on an actual woman. “This is a radical argument with dangerous consequences for women's health,” said ACLU attorney Jennifer Dalven, who will be arguing the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and the clinics.

The Ayotte case will be heard tomorrow at 11 a.m., following the 10 a.m. arguments in Scheidler v. NOW and Operation Rescue v. NOW, related cases involving anti-abortion violence and access to women’s health care clinics. These will be the first abortion-related cases heard by Chief Justice John Roberts. The Feminist Majority Foundation authored a major clinic violence amicus brief in the NOW cases and signed on to a brief authored by Legal Momentum in the Ayotte case opposing the New Hampshire parental notification law.

LEARN MORE Visit the Feminist Majority Foundation’s resource page on these critical Supreme Court cases.

DONATE DONATE to the Feminist Majority Foundation’s National Clinic Access Project, working to keep women’s health care clinics safe and open.

Media Resources: Feminist Majority Foundation; Statement of Jennifer Dalven 9/26/05


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

7/1/2015 Women's Rights Activists are Suing the Kenyan Government for Reproductive Rights - A woman in Kenya is suing the Kenyan government for failure to provide safe and legal abortions, which caused her daughter - a 15-year-old rape victim - to suffer a kidney failure after undergoing the procedure illegally. Currently, there are four petitioners on the case: the mother of the survivor, the Federation of Women Lawyers-Kenya, and two other women's rights advocates. . . .
 
6/30/2015 Community Members, Advocates, and Celebrities Stand in Support with Bree Newsome - On June 27, at about 6:30 AM, Bree Newsome scaled the flagpole at South Carolina's Statehouse and removed the confederate flag. . . .
 
6/30/2015 Supreme Court Ruling Prevents Gerrymandering in Arizona - In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Ginsburg this morning, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, allowing the use of independent state commissions that draw federal congressional districts, taking that power away from the state legislature. This gives states an opportunity to deal with partisan gerrymandering by giving an independent commission power to draw federal congressional districts. In 2000, Arizona voters amended their constitution, shifting the responsibility of drawing congressional districts, previously held by the state legislature, to a panel called the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. . . .