Two abortion cases to be heard Nov 30, 2005

[Forest-Pine]

I wonder if cases like this are why the Senate is waiting so long to have Alito's hearings. They don't want another conservative on the court.


On Wednesday, November 30, the US Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two cases that will have a major impact on the work that pro-lifers do.

The first case is Scheidler v. NOW (and companion case Operation Rescue v. NOW) which is a continuation of an 18-year battle pro-life activists have been fighting in Chicago. At stake is the right of groups to protest and not be prosecuted using federal statutes designed to bring violent gangs to justice.

The second case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. This case involves the right of parents to be notified when their minor daughter is requesting an abortion. How the Court rules on this case will determine the notification laws in every state in the Union, and if decided wrongly could very well shatter states' current parental notification and consent laws.

[mary bobo]

Originally Posted by Forest-Pine

I wonder if cases like this are why the Senate is waiting so long to have Alito's hearings. They don't want another conservative on the court.


On Wednesday, November 30, the US Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two cases that will have a major impact on the work that pro-lifers do.

The first case is Scheidler v. NOW (and companion case Operation Rescue v. NOW) which is a continuation of an 18-year battle pro-life activists have been fighting in Chicago. At stake is the right of groups to protest and not be prosecuted using federal statutes designed to bring violent gangs to justice.

The second case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. This case involves the right of parents to be notified when their minor daughter is requesting an abortion. How the Court rules on this case will determine the notification laws in every state in the Union, and if decided wrongly could very well shatter states' current parental notification and consent laws.

Are you sure that the laws in other states will be affected? Will not each state make its own laws about things such as this? Don't know, but wonder.

It is going to be interesting to see how Justice Roberts times the votes on these cases. Will he call for vote while O'Connor still sits there or will he opt to wait until Alito is confirmed? At any rate, I smell a filibuster coming on. If so, we will see what the GOP is made of. And what about the nifarious Group of 14? This is going to be interesting.

[Digitonomy]

Originally Posted by Forest-Pine

I wonder if cases like this are why the Senate is waiting so long to have Alito's hearings. They don't want another conservative on the court

No. Most senators are aware that the Court will punt cases to the next session, if the vote is close enough that the pending nominee could make the difference.

[Holly3278]

Originally Posted by mary bobo

Are you sure that the laws in other states will be affected? Will not each state make its own laws about things such as this? Don't know, but wonder.

It is going to be interesting to see how Justice Roberts times the votes on these cases. Will he call for vote while O'Connor still sits there or will he opt to wait until Alito is confirmed? At any rate, I smell a filibuster coming on. If so, we will see what the GOP is made of. And what about the nifarious Group of 14? This is going to be interesting.

Well such cases would set a legal precedent would they not? I will be praying for these cases tonight and tomorrow.

[Digitonomy]

Originally Posted by mary bobo

Are you sure that the laws in other states will be affected? Will not each state make its own laws about things such as this? Don't know, but wonder.

Most likely laws in some states will be affected. Although the court will rule on a specific law, they are establishing a principle of what is constitutional - or how the constitution is to be interpreted in this type of case. If they strike down a law requiring parental notification for mothers below the age of 15, then it will be pretty clear that an even broader law requiring parental notification below 17 is also unconstitutional. Conversely, if it's ok to notify parents when the mother is under 17, then it is surely all right to do so under 15. These are just examples; don't pin me down to specifics as I really don't know the particular laws.

Originally Posted by mary bobo

It is going to be interesting to see how Justice Roberts times the votes on these cases. Will he call for vote while O'Connor still sits there or will he opt to wait until Alito is confirmed?

Alito will not vote nor take part in discussions about cases argued before he was a justice. But as I mentioned above, a case where O'Connor's/Alito's vote would be decisive will be reheard next term.

[shannin]

Bump. Today is the day.

[Brad]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...9/113210.shtml

"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,"

Talk about going backward in time. I think the last time a 13 year old was considered a woman was when the most obedient and humble human person that ever walked the earth gave birth in a stable.

Also, I was wondering if we should make stealing legal as it still happens. Oh, so many questions and "new realities" to ponder.

[Digitonomy]

Doesn't appear that this case is going to be groundbreaking, at least based on this reporters take:

By Linda Greenhouse
New York Times
Published: December 1, 2005

Washington, Nov. 30

The justices appeared to be in broad agreement on two propositions: that laws regulating teenagers' access to abortion must make allowances for medical emergencies; and that the New Hampshire law, requiring notice to one parent and a 48-hour waiting period, failed to do so.

The only dispute was over how to fix the problem, and even as to that question, there was some evidence of a consensus in the making.

The Court conveniently released audio of the arguments, so you can listen. Not especially exciting, however.

And not being familiar with this other case, I couldn't make sense out of this summary:

....The court heard arguments in another abortion-related case on Wednesday, revisiting for the third time the question of whether the federal racketeering law can be used in a private lawsuit to bar violent protests at abortion clinics. Based on the arguments in Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, No. 04-1244, it appeared likely that the justices would overturn a federal appeals court decision that has kept the 19-year-old case alive.