Pro-Lifers Like Ayotte Ruling -- But Some Say It Addresses Only Half the Problem

I thought the parental notification for minors seeking abortion was very two faced of our officials and courts. A minor cannot even get treatment for a non-life threatening procedure without parental notification, so how are earth can it be justified to give a minor an abortion, which is a major surgical procedure, without parental notification. I'm glad to see this ruling, and if it helps overturn Roe vs. Wade, well, so much the better

(AgapePress) - The president of Liberty Counsel says a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week affirms parental rights when it comes to abortions for minors -- and also lays the foundation to chip away at Roe v. Wade. At the same time, one pro-life group sees it as only a partial victory.
It seems appropriate that during "Sanctity of Life Week" -- which this year commemorates the 33rd anniversary of Roe -- that the highest court in the land would hand down a decision that is hailed by pro-life advocates. In a unanimous vote on Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that lower courts may not strike down abortion laws in their entirety when a narrow ruling is possible.
Specifically, the court said a lower court went too far when it blocked a New Hampshire law requiring a parent be notified within 48 hours before an abortion could be performed on a minor. In the case Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, lower courts had invalidated the entire law based on the assumption that the law did not provide an exception to parental notification when the young mother's life was in danger.
Mat StaverLiberty Counsel president and general counsel Mat Staver says the high court's unanimous ruling upheld parental involvement statutes. "The court admitted that in 2000 it struck down Nebraska's partial-birth birth abortion [ban] in its entirety solely because it lacked a health exception," Staver explains. "And surprisingly the court seemed to acknowledge that had the parties in that case [Stenberg v. Carhart] asked for a more narrow ruling, it could have upheld part of the law while striking down only the allegedly 'offending' section."
According to the Christian attorney, the ruling has major ramifications for future abortion-related legislation.
"We can now move forward with passing more pro-life legislation that ultimately protects life," he says. "And what has happened in the past is if there's one portion of the law that the courts disagree with, the entire law is struck down -- and in the meantime, no law is permitted.
"So I think this particular situation now narrows the scope of abortion litigation," Staver concludes, "and allows for more abortion regulation to be enacted across the country."
The high court made it clear that its intention in the ruling was not to revisit the nation's abortion precedents. But Staver says he is optimistic that the time will come when the Supreme Court will do exactly that. Pro-lifers and defenders of the unborn across America can only hope that is case. In the meantime, however, they appear to be grateful for what one pro-life group sees as a partial victory.
Brandi Swindell of Generation Life says while the decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood is a win for pro-lifers, it is not a complete victory.
"We are a little disappointed in the fact that the Supreme Court did not find the whole law constitutional," she admits. "What they've done is they've actually somewhat overturned the decision of the lower court, but they've thrown it back to the lower court to review the portions that are potentially unconstitutional."
And that is why Swindell considers it just a partial victory. Her group is "a little nervous," she says, that the justices were not "a little more aggressive in upholding the entire New Hampshire law -- because it's a very good, solid, constitutional law, in our opinion."
American Life League, perhaps the nation's highest-profile pro-life organization, has similar concerns. ALL vice president Jim Sedlak says the Supreme Court only took care of "half the problem."
"Planned Parenthood's attempt to usurp parental authority and endanger children's lives was defeated, which is always good," Sedlak offers. "However, the court did not uphold the law in its entirety -- and therefore, residents of New Hampshire are still in danger of having that law, or parts of the law, once again overturned by the lower court."
For that reason, says Sedlak, parents across America who want to ensure the safety of their children "must do all they can to defeat groups like Planned Parenthood that want to exclude parental involvement from children's lives."
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council would likely second that depiction of the pro-abortion group. He is on record as describing Planned Parenthood as "the most radically anti-parent organization in the world."
The Supreme Court ruling in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood comes just days before hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers are expected to converge on Washington for the annual "March for Life."

See my original post here and here.