In case you missed it, here are some updates to the post Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. The US Supreme Court should have spent only 5 minutes on this case!
Here is one very interesting quote from day 1 of the 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” 
.
Also, Christina of RealChoice offers some insight into the hypocrisy of the “abusive parent” claims made by some who wish to strike down parental notification laws. If a parent is abusing their child, then that pregnant child should be removed from the home and the abusive parent prosecuted! That does not mean that the baby did anything to deserve the death penalty! If the abused pregnant child can’t handle raising the baby, then there are families on waiting lists just hoping to adopt children! Turn what may have started as an injustice into a blessing for somebody else that wants to show a child a loving home!
