The 2003 law was struck down, days before it was to take effect, for failing to provide an exception to protect a minor's health. Under the law, parents or guardians must be notified either in person or by certified mail.
Supporters of the law say a provision that allows a girl to go to a judge instead of a parent provides needed protection if her health is in danger. Opponents, however, say the law's requirements could lead to dangerous delays and result in judges making medical decisions instead of doctors. They also view the law as an ill-disguised attempt by abortion opponents to chip away at Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion. (CNN)
It wil be interesting to see how the case is handled by the court. Conservatives will no doubt count on Chief Justice Roberts to rule in their favor, but his vote will likely be the same as Rehnquist's would have been.
"Women are going to get abortions no matter what, whether it's legal or illegal, whether they're 13 or whether they're 50. ... Any limitations put on it is heading backward in time," said Becca Pawling, 35, who leads Annie's Forum, a weekly program that brings together teenage girls and older women for snacks, support, crafts and conversation in Portsmouth.
We've heard this before, haven't we? It's the old they're going to do it anyway so it may as well be legal argument. But does it hold any water? Quite frankly, no, it doesn't. If that argument is valid, then we may as well legalize illicit drug use, since people are just going to use marijuana and crystal meth anyway. After all, people who use drugs put them into their own bodies, and don't they have a right to do with their bodies as they please?
But of course, it's all about moving forward, isn't it. None of this "heading backward in time" stuff. Any step forward is naturally the correct one.
Related: Check out this post on failed abortions and babies left to die on a hospital shelf.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."