It has been nothing less than ridiculous to hear continued debate over parental notification laws! Regarding the current US Supreme Court case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, the state of New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act was found to be “unconstitutional” by lower courts. First let’s review this entire act:
NH: Parental Notification Prior to Abortion
132:25 Notification Required. –
I. No abortion shall be performed upon an unemancipated minor or upon a female for whom a guardian or conservator has been appointed pursuant to RSA 464-A because of a finding of incompetency, until at least 48 hours after written notice of the pending abortion has been delivered in the manner specified in paragraphs II and III.
II. The written notice shall be addressed to the parent at the usual place of abode of the parent and delivered personally to the parent by the physician or an agent.
III. In lieu of the delivery required by paragraph II, notice shall be made by certified mail addressed to the parent at the usual place of abode of the parent with return receipt requested and with restricted delivery to the addressee, which means the postal employee shall only deliver the mail to the authorized addressee. Time of delivery shall be deemed to occur at 12 o’clock noon on the next day on which regular mail delivery takes place, subsequent to mailing.
Keep in mind that in the state of New Hampshire a minor cannot even get a SUNTAN WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT! With the Abortion Notification Act, it is only required that a parent be NOTIFIED before their grandchild is killed in their own minor child’s womb! It does not even require parental consent! Rather than allow grandparents to be notified that their grandchild is about to die, some would rather keep it concealed! Their claim is that “the life of the mother” could be in danger!
I find this “life of the mother” cry to be very ironic! Given we don’t require that other laws include an “except when a life is in danger” clause! For example, states’ laws against murder do not include an “except when your life is in danger, then you can kill” clause! States’ laws against stealing do not include an “except when you must commandeer property to save lives in disaster” clause! Because it is understood and established by other legal precedent, that exceptions to law can be made when other life is in danger. So in the case of killing a baby it is obvious that when a mother’s life is in danger exceptions would be made to existing laws. There is no need to document this fact and never has been with other laws!
Therefore, the US Supreme Court would have done well to show this nation some good common sense, by giving each side 2 minutes to speak, then wrapping this case up one minute after that! And within the 5th minute saying that of course the NH law makes sense, is Constitutional and send everybody home!
When it comes to the matter of abortion baby killing, I totally agree with Jesse Jackson! That is, I agree with the Jesse Jackson of 1977! The one that said the following:
Only the name has changed
In the abortion debate one of the crucial questions is when does life begin. Anything growing is living. Therefore human life begins when the sperm and egg join and drop into the fallopian tube and the pulsation of life take place. From that point, life may be described differently (as an egg, embryo, fetus, baby, child, teenager, adult), but the essence is the same. The name has changed but the game remains the same.Human beings cannot give or create life by themselves, it is really a gift from God. Therefore, one does not have the right to take away (through abortion) that which he does not have the ability to give.
(source)
Of course we know that he has since changed his tune. And I totally disagree with the Jesse Jackson of now. Today’s Jesse Jackson is not part of “One Nation Under God”. He is a man who lives under whatever man’s laws dictate, as he said himself:
JACKSON: We live under a Constitution, not under a bible, under the Constitution.
(source)
You know the old saying “your first answer is probably the right one”. Jesse got it right the first time. And he’s been wrong ever since! Killing innocent babies that never were tried and convicted of any crime is just insane! And all men live under the laws of God, whether some admit it or not!
The Independent Conservative thanks La Shawn Barber for this opportunity!
Update!
Update 12/1/2005 11:12AM Here is one very interesting quote from yesterday’s hearing:
(emphasis added)
“I’d like to tell you that people in New Hampshire do care about their children, parents do care about the health and welfare of their minor children; and that’s why they really don’t want secret abortions performed without them having any knowledge of it whatsoever. The outrageous claim that we do not care about any medical emergency is simply not true. There has been no evidence brought forth by any abortion providers that any minor has ever had to have an emergency, immediate abortion to take care of any medical problem. We of course, would like to have any minor who has a problem with their health to be treated immediately. … We think if there’s a medical emergency, it’s particularly important for a doctor to be involved and at a licensed facility and that the parent who knows the medical history and has the well-being of their daughter at heart, to be able to be involved.”
Kelly Ayotte, attorney general:
Cheif Justice John Roberts is also seeing through the smoke of the “emergency abortion” claim.
…
Roberts: Counsel, if your objection goes to the adequacy of the bypass procedure, what is wrong with a pre-enforcement challenge by physicians, presumably with standing, challenging the bypass procedure? Why should you be able to challenge the act as a whole if your objection is so narrowly focused?Dalven: Two points, Chief Justice Roberts. First is that our objection isn’t to the bypass process. We believe that there would be -regardless of how good the procedures the New Hampshire Supreme Court set up, there would still be inherent delay between the time the doctor diagnoses the patient and the time they get to court and get the order. So it’s not a problem with the judicial bypass.
The second question -
Roberts: But it’s a problem that arises only in the emergency situations.
Dalven: That’s correct.
Roberts: So bring in a pre-enforcement challenge concerning compliance with the act in emergency situations. Why does that even implicate the vast majority of the cases that don’t create emergency situations?
Dalven: We believe that is this case. There is nothing between this case – the difference between this case -
Roberts: This case doesn’t involve an emergency situation. This is a facial challenge. There is no case at issue at all.
…
(source)
Looks like Justice Roberts is starting out “on the good foot” 
.
