WASHINGTON (ABP) — A unanimous Supreme Court managed Jan. 18 to uphold a New Hampshire law requiring parental notification for minors seeking abortions without breaking new ground on abortion rights — though many had hoped or feared they would.
In deciding Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (No. 04-1144), the justices said lower federal courts had erred by invalidating the entire law when only a portion of it raised constitutional concerns.
“We do not revisit our abortion precedents today, but rather address a question of remedy: If enforcing a statute that regulates access to abortion would be unconstitutional in medical emergencies, what is the appropriate judicial response?” said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who wrote the brief, 10-page opinion for the court. “We hold that invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief.”
The case concerned a 2003 New Hampshire law that required minors seeking abortions to notify their parents before doctors could carry out the procedure, except in emergencies.
In the latest case, an abortion-rights group challenged the New Hampshire law because it does not contain an explicit exception for the health of the minor.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck the entire statute down, citing the high court's 2000 Stenberg v. Carhart decision that said any restriction on a woman's right to choose an abortion would have to contain an exception designed to protect the mother's health. The court also cited other abortion opinions requiring health exceptions in laws restricting abortion rights.
But New Hampshire's attorney general appealed the circuit court's ruling, arguing not only that state law already contains sufficient safeguards to protect the health of abortion-seeking minors, but also that the lower courts should not have invalidated the entire law simply because of its lack of an explicit health exception.
In oral arguments on the case Nov. 30, however, it was apparent that several of the justices sought a way to avoid the minefield of abortion rights and dispose of the case with a narrowly tailored ruling. The decision sends the case back to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration.
Because the statue's lack of a health exception would hinder the abortion rights of a “very small” number of minors, O'Connor wrote, the lower courts had picked too “blunt” a remedy to the problem by overturning the entire law.
“Generally speaking, when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute, we try to limit the solution to the problem,” she said.
The decision comes less than a week after members of the Senate Judiciary Committee quizzed Samuel Alito, President Bush's nominee to replace the retiring O'Connor, about his views on abortion rights. O'Connor has proven a reliable vote in favor of maintaining legalized abortion in most cases. But Alito, currently a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, is widely expected to be less favorable to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
The Jan. 18 decision — which came earlier than many observers expected — means that Alito will not be involved in the case. O'Connor has agreed to step down as soon as her successor is confirmed by the Senate. Had Alito been confirmed before the case was decided, the court could have reheard it with the new justice on the bench.
However, if Alito is confirmed, he may get a chance to hear another abortion case — over whether a Nebraska ban on certain late-term abortion procedures, sometimes labeled “partial-birth abortions,” violates the Constitution.
Groups on all sides of the abortion-rights debate had mixed reviews for the ruling.
The Family Research Council hailed the ruling in a statement, calling it “a win for the pro-life movement.” But an American Life League release said returning the case to a lower court with instructions and affirming that the lack of a health exception was a problem means “residents of New Hampshire are still in danger of having that law, or parts of the law, once again overturned by the lower court. Basically, the Supreme Court only took care of half of the problem.”
Meanwhile, a joint statement from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America cautiously welcomed the decision. “We are relieved that the Supreme Court left in place protections for women's health and safety in abortion laws,” it read, adding, “We continue to believe that the law should be struck down by the lower court.”