# Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood - SCOTUS takes on an abortion case! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190 "2005-05-23T23:51:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/101 "2005-05-25T15:20:23Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > …I can’t help but wonder why you think that the Supreme Court is granting cert to review whether or not strict parental notification laws are constitutionally permissible, if you think _Lambert v. Wicklund_ has settled that question. If _Lambert v. Wicklund_ settled the legal issue of whether or not “judicial bypass” provided sufficient relief from the “undue burden” referred to in _Planned Parenthood v. Casey_…which does seem to be the case…then why would the Supreme Court bother reopening the issue just to say parental notification laws are constitutional if they already said so back in 1997? Good question. Of course, they could have left this particular case alone, because the First Circuit overturned the law. If they wanted that result, they could have left it alone. I think they accepted it to address the tension between _Lambert_ and _U.S. v. Salerno_. But we’ll see. [quote] It seems to me I’ll _accept_ whatever I want to. I can recognize the legal status of cases like _Lambert v. Wicklund_ without agreeing with their moral conclusions just as much as you can wail about _Roe v. Wade_. Sure you can. But as I’ve suggested elsewhere. debates premised on the moral rightness of a position are essentially unsustainable, since you don’t agree with my moral authorities, and I don’t agree with yours, and there does not appear to be an objective way of measuring which of ours is more valid. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/102 "2005-05-25T16:38:33Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Your link goes to a right wing, nutbag, propoganda website. Abortions are actually quite safe these days and any minor complications can be easily dealt with by the medical personel on sight. Sorry, no sale here. You have not provided an argument for ratting girls out to abusive parents, nor have you addressed the fact that imposing such a threat on these kids will drive them to make less safe choices. Death and injury is still death and injury no matter who reports it…IT happened. Sure, minor complications can be dealt with by the staff IF the minor come backs to report it…but then again, minors can make bad decisions even when it comes to seeking medical treatment without guidance from a parent OR another responsible adult that the minor confides in (and that’s if she’s choosen to confide in anyone). Also, you missed my final statement…_This a problem that both sides are unable to honestly address_. I realize that issues of safety arise from both sides of the issue, so just because I cited a “right wing, nutbag, propoganda website”, I still realize that the issue is NOT black and white as others here are trying to make it…you’re only fooling yourself if you or others see it that way. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/103 "2005-05-25T18:01:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think they accepted it to address the tension between _Lambert_ and _U.S. v. Salerno_. But we’ll see. Huh? [This](http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/articles/hastings/hastings-7_.htm) _U.S. v. Salerno_? “Salerno”, as in Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno, who went to the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the Bail Reform Act? The _U.S. v. Salerno_ where the Supreme Court “implicitly reaffirmed the right of the government to detain” people contary to the Due Process clause under certain circumstances? What does that have to do with parental notification laws? > [@](#): > > Sure you can. But as I’ve suggested elsewhere. debates premised on the moral rightness of a position are essentially unsustainable, since you don’t agree with my moral authorities, and I don’t agree with yours, and there does not appear to be an objective way of measuring which of ours is more valid. Wow. I disagree _immensely_. The lack of an objective standard for the validity of moral codes does not imply that debates springing from moral premises are unsustainable. _Unresolvable_, sometimes. But even then, not always. As **Left Hand of Dorkness** has suggested in this very thread, it is still possible to reach common moral conclusions by appealing to common experience, just as we reach common conclusions as to what the colour “red” is by appealing to common experience. And when you get right down to it, bridging the gap between differing subjective viewpoints to try and reach a common consensus is the whole point of communication. The alternative…to suggest that _only_ objective standards can sustain a debate…is downright dangerous when applied to the law. Let me put it this way: the laws of physics are not physics. The laws of physics _model_ the behaviour of the real world. And if the laws of physics do not accurately model that behaviour, then what is the point of putting them in a physics textbook?. Similarly, the laws of man are not morals. But they’re meant to serve a society by _reflecting_ an underlying notion of right and wrong. The moral code implicitly defined by the law does not agree 100% with every individual’s moral code, but what is the point of law if it does not at least attempt to reflect an consensus moral viewpoint? Debating legalities in and of themselves is necessary and fruitful. But if we only debate law in a vacuum, then how are we to ensure that the law is still serving society and not the other way around? Long story short: morality is as relevant to legal discussion as experimental evidence is to a discussion of physics. (“And now my work is done. Captain Hijack, away! …”) ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/104 "2005-05-25T18:21:24Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > I’ve made no secret that my father was emotionally abusive to me when I was a teenager and, while Dad and I get on fine these days, that abuse left scars. I think I might be able to offer a bit of perspective on parental notification. > > If I’d gotten pregnant while I was in high school, I would have been afraid to tell my parents. I’m reasonably sure that if it had been anything been anything but the most blatant and obvious type of rape, Dad’s firs reaction would have been to ask what I did to provoke it. Things would not have been pleasant. Here’s a bit of confirming evidence. Years after I graduated, Dad and I were talking about a talk show about girls who’d gotten pregnant in high school. He said to me, “You don’t really think I would have thrown you out of the house if you’d gotten pregnant, do you?” I replied, “Dad, you would have threatened to!” I would have believed the threat. With my _admittedly limited_ teenage perspective, faced with the prospect of being thrown and disowned, if I’d been gotten pregnant, I would have sought an abortion or attempted suicide. Remember, folks, I’d attempted suicide for the first time at 14 or 15 and my family hadn’t done anything even when it became very public knowledge and my father chose to do nothing when I was molested at 16. That’s why I cannot bring myself to support parental notification laws. > > **Bricker** , **Jonathan Chance** , **Diogenese** , I’m sure you all have wonderful relationships with your daughters and can’t picture it being any other way. **treis** , the only reason I didn’t include you in that list is because I can’t remember whether you have children. I agree that in an ideal world children should be able to tell their parents about things and a child shouldn’t be afraid of what would happen if her parents found out she needed an abortion. Then again, in my ideal world, there would be no need for abortion. This isn’t one. It isn’t just girls who were impregnated by their own fathers who need protection; it’s nice, respectable girls who are trying to have a good relationship with their fathers, despite the interference of their own faults and history. > > I don’t like writing what I have about my father; I’ve made my peace with him and I really do love him dearly. I also know what things were like for me as a teenager. > Respectfully, > CJ > > - No child for me. Do not get me wrong I will be the first one calling for protection for minors if it is warrented. However I need more than anecdotes and common-sense type reasonings before I support abridging a guardians right to know about their wards medical procedures. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/105 "2005-05-25T18:25:24Z")
Interestingly enough, I believe that some states hold that if a minor gives birth to a child, then the minor, by the mere virtue of the fact that she has become a parent, is qualified to make medical decisions (as well as other decisions) for her offspring. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/106 "2005-05-25T19:06:37Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > Interestingly enough, I believe that some states hold that if a minor gives birth to a child, then the minor, by the mere virtue of the fact that she has become a parent, is qualified to make medical decisions (as well as other decisions) for her offspring. Yes, I’m sure I recall that from previous threads. I think it’s ridiculous that some people would say that the pregnant minor cannot make her own independent medical decisions, but that when her child is born (while she’s still a minor herself), she is able to make decisions for the baby. She can be responsible for someone else’s health but not for her own? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/107 "2005-05-25T19:34:27Z")
> [@Orbifold](#): > > Huh? > > [This](http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cphl/articles/hastings/hastings-7_.htm) _U.S. v. Salerno_? “Salerno”, as in Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno, who went to the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the Bail Reform Act? The _U.S. v. Salerno_ where the Supreme Court “implicitly reaffirmed the right of the government to detain” people contary to the Due Process clause under certain circumstances? > > What does that have to do with parental notification laws? Quite a jump, eh? Nonetheless, there is a connection. _Salerno_ stands for the proposition that plaintiffs trying to show a state law facially invalid must meet a specific burden: that “no set of circumstances exists under which the law would be valid.” In _Casey v. Planned Parenthood_, a plurality of the Court applied a different standard: a law is facially invalid if “…in a large fraction of cases in which the law is relevant,” it will operate as a substantial obstacle to a woman’s choice to undergo an abortion, creating an “undue burden.” In the lower courts for the instant case, New Hampshire argued that the _Salerno_ standard shloud be applied. Most circuits have applied the _casey_ standard when dealing with abortion laws and the _Salerno_ standard elsewhere; so far as I can tell, the Supreme Court has never explictly approved this practice. So - maybe that’s where they’re going. > [@](#): > > The lack of an objective standard for the validity of moral codes does not imply that debates springing from moral premises are unsustainable. _Unresolvable_, sometimes. But even then, not always. As **Left Hand of Dorkness** has suggested in this very thread, it is still possible to reach common moral conclusions by appealing to common experience, just as we reach common conclusions as to what the colour “red” is by appealing to common experience. In a gathering of like-minded people – often found on this forum, I might parenthetically point out – you are much more likely to reach a comfortable majority of common moral conclusions; they would differ sharply from the mood of the country as a whole. The vast majority of posters here would bridle at the suggestions that homosexual behavior is immoral - yet this attitude prevails in much of the country, and is held by a considerable chunk of your fellow citizens. So… as a general proposition, I acknowledge the truth that it is possible to reach common moral conclusions by appealing to common experience. But as applied to any moderately contentious topic in real life… eh… not so much. > [@](#): > > The alternative…to suggest that _only_ objective standards can sustain a debate…is downright dangerous when applied to the law. Let me put it this way: the laws of physics are not physics. The laws of physics _model_ the behaviour of the real world. And if the laws of physics do not accurately model that behaviour, then what is the point of putting them in a physics textbook?. Similarly, the laws of man are not morals. But they’re meant to serve a society by _reflecting_ an underlying notion of right and wrong. The moral code implicitly defined by the law does not agree 100% with every individual’s moral code, but what is the point of law if it does not at least attempt to reflect an consensus moral viewpoint? I’m not sure. I think there are many people that would strongly resist the attempt to suggest that the law is meant to model a moral framework; they would say that it is not for the state to legislate morality. An appeal to a law that existed _solely_ to sustain a commonly-held moral point, without some objective component to it, woiuld be met with loud cries of derision from a substantial portion of society these days. > [@](#): > > Debating legalities in and of themselves is necessary and fruitful. But if we only debate law in a vacuum, then how are we to ensure that the law is still serving society and not the other way around? > > Long story short: morality is as relevant to legal discussion as experimental evidence is to a discussion of physics. We theoretically ensure that the law is still serving society and not the other way around by devising objective bases for the laws we propose. Can you give an example of laws that do not have an objective component that is sufficent for their existence? That is, we may all agree that a prohibition against murder is is effecting a moral principle, but prohibiting murder also has practical, objective benefits which, absent any moral underpinnings, would still justify the prohibition. Is there any law for which that isn’t true? It seems to me that the trend is towards removal of such laws, to the extent they still exist. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/108 "2005-05-25T19:47:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can you give an example of laws that do not have an objective component that is sufficent for their existence? That is, we may all agree that a prohibition against murder is is effecting a moral principle, but prohibiting murder also has practical, objective benefits which, absent any moral underpinnings, would still justify the prohibition. > > Is there any law for which that isn’t true? It seems to me that the trend is towards removal of such laws, to the extent they still exist. What practical reasons do we have against a mother’s murder of her 1-year-old child? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/109 "2005-05-25T20:17:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In the lower courts for the instant case, New Hampshire argued that the _Salerno_ standard shloud be applied. Most circuits have applied the _Casey_ standard when dealing with abortion laws and the _Salerno_ standard elsewhere; so far as I can tell, the Supreme Court has never explictly approved this practice. > > So - maybe that’s where they’re going. Nomic, writ large. Gotcha. Well, if nothing else you’ve convinced me to watch for the results of this case. It seems from your comments above that one theoretical (but unlikely) outcome is a rollback of the court’s position on spousal notification laws, heaven forbid. The rest of your post deserves more of a reply, but my surfing time is pretty much up for the day and it’s a hijack to boot. Perhaps I’ll start a new thread about it later. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/110 "2005-05-25T20:26:12Z")
> [@Waenara](#): > > Yes, I’m sure I recall that from previous threads. > > I think it’s ridiculous that some people would say that the pregnant minor cannot make her own independent medical decisions, but that when her child is born (while she’s still a minor herself), she is able to make decisions for the baby. She can be responsible for someone else’s health but not for her own? In response to your post and along with **plnnr** ’s post…Should a minor become emancipated from her parents if she herself becomes a parent, regardless of age? I’m not trying to be snarky or anything like that, but I’m just curious if that would seem logical to you (or anyone else for that matter). It happens in some states if one or two minors get married, would you think that this is a better way to view this? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/111 "2005-05-25T23:15:40Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Or perhaps they did tell her, but she didn’t remember the details, as children, who don’t necessarily understand the import of certain facts, often do. Children that young don’t get pregnant. Adolescents and teenagers, OTOH, are quite capable of remembering that they’re allergic to certain medications, and understanding the importance of staying away from them. > [@](#): > > Can you really not think of any reason other than being control freaks that parents would rather they instead of a minor be in charge of administering that child’s health? To the point that they’d withhold important medical information from her? No. > [@](#): > > Unless it’s a case of rape, the fact that she got pregnant when she was in no position to have a baby indicates that her judgement is very much deficient. Nonsense. No birth control method is 100% effective, as I’m sure you know, which means it’s possible to become pregnant without either being raped or failing to take precautions. Or do you think that everyone who has sex when they don’t want children is lacking in judgment? > [@](#): > > At this point in time, minors are generally not considered to be responsible for their own actions. Case in point, a (supposedly) consensual sexual relationship between an adult and a minor is considered statutory rape. Why then should the law consider them fully responsible and liable for their own medical care decisions? First, because it’s a step in the right direction - recognizing that many minors are, in fact, responsible enough to make these decisions. Second, and more importantly in this case, because pregnancy is going to affect the minor in question far more than it’ll affect her parents, and under no circumstances should those parents be able to intimidate or force her into making a choice that she’ll regret for the rest of her life. She may be a minor now, but she’ll be an adult soon enough, and the consequences of her parents’ interference will still be with her. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/112 "2005-05-26T02:01:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, I agree. And yet _Bowers v. Hardwick_ lies in the ashes of overturned law… FTR, I advocated and would have voted for the Equal Protection argument espoused by O’Connor’s concurrence, precisely because of the precedent of _Bowers_. Result’s the same, of course, but the precedent would still have been intact. You may now retract your implied charge of hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/113 "2005-05-26T02:16:40Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > FTR, I advocated and would have voted for the Equal Protection argument espoused by O’Connor’s concurrence, precisely because of the precedent of _Bowers_. Result’s the same, of course, but the precedent would still have been intact. You don’t have to answer if you don’t wish, but, as a complete hijack, you think that same sex discrimination amounts to discrimination on the basis of gender? Or am I messing up my opinions? Personally, as much as I like the result, I couldn’t agree with her reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/114 "2005-05-26T02:29:09Z")
It’s been a few years, but I agreed with O’Connor’s analysis. The Equal Protection approach was also the primary issue presented by the petitioner, undoubtedly because the Due Process argument had been rejected by _Bowers_. Of course, now that _Lawrence_ has been decided, I believe _stare decisis_ should prevent any subsequent requests to overturn it. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/115 "2005-05-26T02:30:50Z")
> [@](#): > > You don’t have to answer if you don’t wish, but, as a complete hijack, you think that same sex discrimination amounts to discrimination on the basis of gender? Or am I messing up my opinions? Personally, as much as I like the result, I couldn’t agree with her reasoning. IIRC, O’Connor argued that the Texas statute amounted to gender discrimination because it allowed men to have sex with women, but forbade _women_ from having sex with women. It always struck me as a pretzel logic-y way of getting around acknowledging sexual orientation as a suspect or quasi-suspect class, but I know several scholars who felt it would have been the best way to go. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/116 "2005-05-26T02:34:22Z")
O’Connor’s anlalysis, by the way, amounted to the sensible aproach that you can’t criminalize sexual conduct based on gender distinctions. That is, a state can (to the extent permissible under the Due Process clause) prohibit certain kinds of sex acts generally, but it cannot prohibit them selectively on the basis of gender. If a man can sodomize a woman, then Equal Protection requires that a man can sodomize a man. Seems reasonable enough to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/117 "2005-05-26T03:42:31Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > O’Connor’s anlalysis, by the way, amounted to the sensible aproach that you can’t criminalize sexual conduct based on gender distinctions. That is, a state can (to the extent permissible under the Due Process clause) prohibit certain kinds of sex acts generally, but it cannot prohibit them selectively on the basis of gender. If a man can sodomize a woman, then Equal Protection requires that a man can sodomize a man. Seems reasonable enough to me. And to me. And to the extent that I was alleging hypocrisy, I withdraw the allegation. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/118 "2005-05-26T06:52:59Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What protections do you want us to offer for those girls? Passing a law requiring children to inform their parents before they pass the first trimester that they are pregnant won’t do anything. Nor would it be right or accomplish anything to punish them for failing to do so. The same protections to privacy that us regular folks get. It would allow parents a chance to point out to the girls that it’s a stupid decision when it’s still relatively low-risk and convenient to terminate the pregnancy. But I like the way you’re thinking on that last bit. Provided parental notification was the responsibility of the minor seeking the procedure (I.E. a checkbox on the admission paperwork, or a letter given to the patient afterwards) with no penalty for not actually doing it, we might be able to agree. > [@treis](#): > > You are operating under the assumption that all parents will force their children to carry the child to term rather than abort. Deciding whether to have an abortion or carry the child to term is a big decision, certainly the biggest in these young girls lives. As such the parents should be informed and have a hand in the decision making process. I’m also operating under the assumption that the probability of harmonious agreement on the abortion issue decreases dramatically when more than one person’s voice is involved. I’m also operating under the assumption that pro-choice parents will be less likely to coerce their daughters into having an abortion than pro-life parents would try to coerce their daughters into not having one. > [@treis](#): > > No that is not the unspoken assumption and I resent the implication you are making here. How about parental notification after-the-fact? A determination as to whether the parents would be notified could be held prior to the procedure, but notification would not occur until after the minor’s independent choice was honored. Parental notification before the abortion (and your explicit statement that parents should “have a hand in the decision making process”) serves the purpose to offer parents a chance to manipulate the minor away from their original choice to abort. Pay attention to the rhetoric of certain pro-life folks. Some oppose abortion because they view unwanted pregnancy as a righteous punishment for fornicating slatterns. I’m sure these people delight in the idea of a teenage seductress, who thought she could destroy the evidence of her sins, recieving her just desserts when she falls into the trap of mandatory parental notification and her parents act as the instruments of God’s Wrath to punish her for her evil deeds. Can I get an Amen? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/119 "2005-05-26T10:37:11Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Of course, now that _Lawrence_ has been decided, I believe _stare decisis_ should prevent any subsequent requests to overturn it. The importance of _stare decisis_ is in providing predictability of results. I would be perfectly happy to see _Lawrence_ overturned, replaced with a ruling that reaches similar results on Equal Protection grounds. The sodomy prohibiton law would remain invalid, and the suspect rationale is eliminated, replaced with a principled analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/120 "2005-05-26T12:02:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And to me. I’ll tell you, this surprises the hell out of me coming from you. Actually, it surprises me that anyone accepted that argument. There was little if no precedential support and very little legal rationality to her opinion. I will grant you that the majority opinion was horribly written, but O’Connor’s concurrence wasn’t much better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190.md?page=7)