Summary:
On November 30, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood against the state of New Hampshire seeking to prohibit the state from enforcing a recently enacted parental notification law. The trial and appellate courts both found the law unconstitutional, so the state appealed to the Supreme Court. While the case began as a challenge to a law restricting young women’s access to abortion, in fact the issues the Court will consider this fall are much broader than that. The outcome of this case – particularly if it is decided after Justice O’Connor has left the Court – could affect virtually every abortion-related case and statute in the country.
The two primary issues that the Supreme Court will address are:
1. Health Exception:
▪ Must a parental notification law contain an exception to protect young women’s health, and how comprehensive must a life exception be to be constitutional?
▪ Note that it is possible, perhaps likely, for the Court to issue a decision that would apply to more than just parental notification/consent laws.
2. Standard of Review:
▪ How many women must be harmed by a restriction on abortion before a court may declare the law unconstitutional?
▪ In other words, what is the standard of review for abortion cases? Is it the standard set forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey or the much stricter standard set forth in a non-abortion-related case (United States v. Salerno)?
NARAL Pro-Choice Pennsylvania hopes that the Court determines that the Casey standard prevails, and that all abortion restrictions must contain comprehensive health and life exceptions.
