WASHINGTON (ABP) — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed May 23 to hear its first major abortion case since 2000 — even as the court's ideological divide hangs in the balance in the Senate.
The case concerns two major issues. The first is whether laws requiring underage girls to inform their parents before getting an abortion must contain an exception to preserve the mother's health. The second is how strict a legal standard those who challenge abortion laws must meet to win their cases.
The court agreed to hear Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England on a day when a visibly weaker Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided on the bench. Rehnquist is battling thyroid cancer, and most court observers expect him to retire when the court completes its current session at the end of June.
Simultaneously, the Senate is facing an epic battle — set to begin in earnest with a test vote on May 24 — over President Bush's nominees to federal judgeships.
Democrats have insisted on the right to stall the approval of Bush nominees to whom they have strong ideological objections, using a debate tactic known as a filibuster. Meanwhile, many Republicans and conservative religious leaders are calling for changing Senate rules to assure up-or-down votes on all Bush nominees.
Besides Rehnquist, observers anticipate as many as three other justices may leave the Supreme Court before the end of Bush's term in 2009. For many years, the court has been closely divided on several controversial issues. Its last major abortion decision, in 2000, was rendered on a 5-4 vote. Since federal judgeships — including the Supreme Court — are granted for life, Bush may have an opportunity to have a significant impact on the court's ideological balance for the next three decades or more.
In that 2000 ruling, the majority said any restriction on a woman's right to choose an abortion would have to contain an exception if carrying the pregnancy to term would put the mother's life or health at risk. The court also has upheld the necessity of such exceptions in other cases following its landmark 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide.
In the latest case, an abortion-rights group challenged the constitutionality of a 2003 New Hampshire law requiring minors to notify their parents or guardians before having an abortion. The law did not contain an exception for the health of the minor.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck the statute down, citing previous Supreme Court decisions requiring health exceptions for other restrictions on abortion rights.
But New Hampshire's attorney general appealed the circuit court's ruling, arguing that those challenging abortion restrictions must prove there is no set of circumstances under which such a restriction would be unconstitutional.
In previous decisions, the Supreme Court has followed a much lower standard for overturning restrictions on abortion rights. It has ruled in several cases that laws imposing a substantial burden on any woman's right to terminate her pregnancy were unconstitutional. However, it has never explicitly rejected the higher standard for which New Hampshire is asking.
The justices will not hear oral arguments in the case until their 2005-2006 term begins in October.