Ayotte vrs. Planned Parenthood

---by Phyllis Woods

On Wednesday, November 30, 2005, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the New Hampshire parental notification law which requires that at least one parent or guardian be told when their minor child is going to have an abortion. This law, passed by the legislature in 2003 and signed by Governor Craig Benson, was never allowed to go into effect as Planned Parenthood filed a complaint with the US District Court who ruled it was unconstitutional. The state then appealed that ruling to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston which upheld the ruling of the first court. NH Attorney General Kelly Ayotte appealed the lower court ruling to the US Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case. The bill voted on by the legislature establishing this law, articulates the following reason for enacting such a law:

"It is the intent of the legislature in enacting this parental notification provision to further the important and compelling state interests of protecting minors against their own immaturity, fostering the family structure and preserving it as a viable social unit, and protecting the rights of parents to rear children who are members of their household."

The main argument of the laws opponents, both in the legislature at the time and in the media recently, center around whether the act is constitutional with its medical emergency provision and without a specific exemption for the health of the mother.

Our law was modeled after the Minnesota law which has an identical emergency exemption and which was upheld by the US Supreme Court. Both states waive parental notice when the girl’s life is threatened and both purposely do not waive notice for what is known as the "health loophole." Opponents would like a health exception clause wherein "health" would be so broadly interpreted that every case could claim the need. However, in more than twenty years since the Minnesota law has been in effect, there have been no reported cases of medical emergencies related to abortion. Furthermore, in the very unlikely eventuality of a real health emergency of a young girl it would seem to be even more critical that parents be allowed to exercise their right to be involved on their daughter’s behalf.

A judicial "bypass" was also included, where a girl could bypass her parents by going before a judge. This was to make allowance for the exceptional case in which a girl is determined to be mature and well-informed enough to make a decision about her unplanned pregnancy alone, or in which involvement of a parent is not in her best interest. The general intent of the law, however, is parental notification, not judicial notification. It is a rare situation where a young girl is better off making such a serious decision without the involvement of a parent. A judicial bypass is required by the US Supreme Court and all other states who have enacted parental involvement laws have included a bypass with wording similar to ours.

We should be mindful that the only ones who will benefit if our law is struck down or repealed are the abortion providers who will be free of the responsibility of notifying a parent or guardian and will be accountable to no one.

Those who will be harmed, however, are the young girls who will be deprived of a parent’s support and counsel when making a difficult decision, a complete medical history, careful attention for any post-abortion complications, and relief from the unnecessary and overwhelming burden of keeping a secret they would otherwise be carrying when returning to their families.

The state does, and should, have a compelling interest in fostering the family structure and protecting the rights of parents to rear their children. When abortions are done on young girls in secret it promotes deception and tears apart the fabric of parent-child relations and parental responsibility thereby harming the family unit. Besides undermining the authority of parents and putting the government and the abortion provider between parent and child, it works against the best interest of the child. We need a parental notification law to protect both children and families.

Phyllis Woods
Dover, NH 03820