ABORTION, RIGHT TO PRIVACY, VERTICAL SEPARATION OF POWERS (STATES'
RIGHTS), WOMENS' RIGHTS, PARENTAL RIGHTS, RIGHTS OF MINORS

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England (04-1144)

Oral argument date: Nov. 30, 2005

Under the New Hampshire Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act,
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 132:24-28 (2003), parental notification is
required before a minor can obtain an abortion. Among the few
exceptions the statute provides is for cases in which the minor's
physician cannot satisfy the parental notification requirement before
the minor will die. However, there is no explicit exception to allow
for an abortion without parental notification where the minor will
sustain non-fatal injuries if the physician refrains from performing
the abortion in order to satisfy the Act's parental notification
requirement. Respondents, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England
and others, claim that the Act is unconstitutional because (1) it lacks
a specific exception to the notification requirement where the minor's
health is imperiled and (2) the death exception provided is too
narrow. Petitioner New Hampshire claims that a health exception is not
required because of the interests the Act seeks to protect—the
potentiality of human life and the protection of minors from
undertaking a risky operation without the advice and support of the
minor's parent(s). The lower courts agreed with Planned Parenthood and
found that the Act was unconstitutional because of its lack of a
specific health exception and because of the Act's narrow death
exception.

The Supreme Court's decision will have a major impact on parental
notification laws. If the Court agrees with New Hampshire, then states
will not have to provide explicit health exceptions in their abortion
laws. Further, New Hampshire's death exception will stand in its
current state, providing for criminal liability where a physician acts
at least negligently in performing an abortion without notification.