Abortion notification arguements

[southsider2k5]

The American Center for Law and Justice has come out in favor of abortion notifications for parents, and they make an interesting arguement. This case might be ending up in front of the Supreme Court soon.

 

The American Center for Law and

Justice (ACLJ), which has filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the

New Hampshire parental notification case, said today the high court has an

important opportunity to protect children by upholding the constitutionality of

a state law requiring parental notification before children can get an abortion.

The ACLJ's brief supports New Hampshire's position - which is also supported by

the federal government - that the parental notification law is needed to protect

the health of children.

 

"Laws like this are extremely important for protecting vulnerable children

against coercion, deception, and the damaging emotional and physical

consequences of abortion," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, which

litigates pro-life issues. "There is a troubling double standard in play here.

Children in public school must get parental permission to receive medication -

even an aspirin. It makes no sense to permit children to undergo a medical

procedure like abortion without their parents being notified. To permit children

to get abortions without parental notification is not only legally flawed, but

bad public policy. This is an important opportunity for the high court to step

in and protect the health and well being of our children."

 

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments tomorrow in the parental notification

case.

 

At the same time, the high court hears arguments tomorrow in a nearly

20-year-old case involving the use of the federal Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute - a law designed to combat drug dealers and

organized crime - against pro-life demonstrators. The ACLJ is Counsel of Record

in that case and represents Operation Rescue.

 

In its friend-of-the-court brief in support of the New Hampshire law, the ACLJ

contends the Supreme Court has never held that all laws regulating the provision

of abortions must contain a "health" exception - as the federal appeals court

concluded. In fact, the ACLJ brief highlights the fact that the high court has

rejected "health" exceptions in the past in the area of abortion funding and

parental involvement laws. The brief contends that to require a "health"

exception for parental notification laws "would be to make a shambles of

existing abortion regulations." Further the ACLJ brief cites specific

Congressional testimony from women who received secret abortions as children and

whose testimony dramatically demonstrates that parental notification laws are

needed and would play a vital role in the health and safety of children who are

considering abortions.

 

Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the ACLJ specializes in constitutional law and

is based in Washington, D.C. The ACLJ is online at www.aclj.org.