New Hampshire arbortion law decision...
Dec. 1st, 2005 08:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lauraanne_gilmanWASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - Well before the argument in a New Hampshire abortion case was over, the question that had drawn the crowds to the Supreme Court on a crisp Wednesday morning had an answer. No, abortion law was not about to undergo a major change in the hands of the new Roberts court, at least not yet.
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 hundreds of spectators in the courtroom, and the countless more who were able to listen, thanks to the court's unusually speedy release of the audiotape, were treated to an intense and lively session during which the justices appeared at times almost to be thinking out loud about how to proceed
for more, go to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/politics/politicsspecial1/01scotus.html?hp&ex=1133499600&en=96e52ac99af783df&ei=5094&partner=homepage
It really is a fascinating look into the proceedings, and the thought process that goes into it -- reassuring to those of us who wonder at times if there is any thought left at higher levels of law and government. The answer is yes, at least on the legal front. Jury's still out on politicos.
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 hundreds of spectators in the courtroom, and the countless more who were able to listen, thanks to the court's unusually speedy release of the audiotape, were treated to an intense and lively session during which the justices appeared at times almost to be thinking out loud about how to proceed
for more, go to http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/01/politics/politicsspecial1/01scotus.html?hp&ex=1133499600&en=96e52ac99af783df&ei=5094&partner=homepage
It really is a fascinating look into the proceedings, and the thought process that goes into it -- reassuring to those of us who wonder at times if there is any thought left at higher levels of law and government. The answer is yes, at least on the legal front. Jury's still out on politicos.
