I'm doing research, and I needed to know what happened to the Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act that New Hampshire was passing. I know there was a case that went to the Supreme Court, and the court rfound part of the act unconstitutional. Does anyone know what has happened with the act since it was returned to a lower court?
138399
"A lower court was wrong to declare unconstitutional a New Hampshire statute restricting abortions for minors, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday." dated January 18, 2006 on Foxnews.com. (check out link below for complete article)\n\nI couldn't find anything that says the lower court has made its new ruling yet.
282095
Its called responsibility and no one teaches that any more. Why bother with birth control when there is an abortion clinic on every corner and no parent's signature is required. But need an emergency appendectomy and they'll let you die on the table if a parent can't sign for it. It sickens me to see 12 year old girls on here wondering if they are pregnant. Who's at home with these kids? Don't parents teach morals and responsibility anymore? Sorry, but a major pet peeve of mine. Particularly now that I am raising a daughter. Frankly, I am terrified of what is in her future.
620634
hello there. I have fears just as you do. I have a now 6 year old son with epilepsy who after all these years I am being told I have to do a paternity test. The father told me if it ever came to this that he would fight me all the way and take my son who he's never been a part of his life away from me. I refused to pursue with the dna test but was told if I didn't the state would. This terrifies me so much. I absolutely know what your fears are. As for can a judge do this?. I was always told a judge couldn't try a case unless both parties have an attorney. Did you sign away your rights to an attorney? If so then the judge does have the right to make this decision especially if this is what the child wants. If your child didn't want to go then the judge should not have sent him to this abuser. I would appeal the case for the best interests of your child, especially since this guy was an abuser. Make sure when you go back to court to have an attorney, and all paperwork(police reports,etc) showing that this abuse was going on.  Let me know if I can help anymore . Blue27:birdlover272006@yahoo.com
108752
Knowing how and why the child's father took her might be helpful.  Was it with your permission, or did he basically kidnap her from school one day?\n\nI don't get your analogy about John murdering Jane.  In your situation, you are the ONLY person who knows who this child's father it, and you've told the police it's him.  Why would you think they would doubt you, and treat this any differently?  \n\nI don't understand the question about discrimination because you haven't mentioned anything that would qualify in my mind as discriminatory.\n\nHaving said all that, let's talk about what you might be able to do:\n\n1.  Does your state have laws regarding child concealment?  California has several laws on the subject and if there are any similar laws where you are, they might be useful.\n\n2.  Going to family court is an excellent suggestion that I think was made by someone else.  An excellent idea. \n\n3.  Post some more details.  I'd be interested to know if there is any kind of general assistance involved here (what people used to call "welfare").  Is the father alleging some kind of bad parenting on your part?  Are you alleging any on his part?  Do you know where the child actually is?\n\nBut really...unless there is some kind of urgency you didn't talk about here, family law court is probably the best avenue you have at this point.
516106
Oh Firestorm, your childish understanding of our legal system, and in particular the concept of judicial review - is adorable. Yeah, abortion is legal? Why? Because the Supreme Court says so. And it looks like even our new Justices are going to choose to uphold abortion as a woman's right...because they understand the constitution. That is, after all, their job.
162137
Wait a minute people, did you bother to read the whole thing or just react to the first lines? We are talking about 2 kids and vengeful parents and probably a very vengeful little girl.\nA good attorney should be able to get a reversal based on nothing more than the facts!\nThis guy was 18, GF was 16, had been together 2 years, she gave it up, and probably enjoyed it more than once! Then, as often happens, they both change,as they are still maturing, and go separate ways. Girlie's mad so calls the cops. Did you people remain virgins until you were over the age of consent? I DOUBT IT! Just because it is a GIRL the courts feel justified,l I highly doubt there is any thought in the guys mind of little girls in this case!\n\nREAD THIS:\n\nHe was 18 and she was 16 when he got charged with a sex offence, they had been dating for 2 years at the time. When he decided to end it, her parents turned him in.
532260
this is something I never could understand, I think if anyone did 5 minutes research they would see it was a republican Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion for Roe VS Wade in the Supreme Court, It was also a republican Supreme Court Chief Justice at the time also, Mrs Bush has even said on national TV (The Today Show) she does not believe the Roe VS Wade should be over turned and thought here husband agreed with her. The Roe VS Wade ruling was about not letting the Government control to make the decision for whats  right for a individual, the same with gun control, when the biggest gun control bill in recent history has been the Brady bill,( a Conservative backed bill) yes, both issues had allot of liberal support, but as in both things, but there is allot of gray area, that they misinform people with
224045
Roe v. Wade (abortion) by far is the most influential case during that time period.  Wyman v. James about 4th Amendment rights.  Parents right and Free Exercise in Wisconsin v. Yoder.  I would personally recommend Yoder as Roe is probably going to be used by a lot of other people in your class.
536547
This is a difficult case with no easy answers. \n\nThe lawyer who represented Ms Campbell in court sums up the other side's case: \n"This was not a decision about custody. It was a decision on whether Mr Rana had acted improperly by violating the court order made at the Court of Session in Scotland in June last year." \n\nFor arguments for both sides: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6192406.stm\n\ncc
605390
I took a quick glance at it and it still seems similar to the regulations that are already in place here in Massachusetts.\n\nMany of my special education parents are involved...some are TOO involved.  Unfortunately there are many as well that are not invested.  \n\nI do think it is important to keep parents involved and up to date with their child's educational concerns.  It is a crucial role in the meeting for you ALL to agree on the appropriate accommodations/modifications necessary for a child to succeed.  However, I do feel that there are some parents who hold their child back from succeeding because they are scared.  For example, this coming school year I would like to take my small group students in my math class (all 3 of them) into the regular education setting.  I have a rough feeling that one particular parent will not allow this.  Why...I don't know.\n\nI feel that IDEA is giving parents more and more rights/responsibilities.  Perhaps in the future it will look at schools as well and give them equal rights.  It seems that the parents are driving the force behind many choices legislature and administration are creating.
607213
It's really amazing to me how many people don't see the freight train hiding being their little conservative posterboard...\n\nDo you know why China can mandate abortions and force sterlizations? Because reproductive choice is not a guaranteed right.\n\nAs soon as Casey is overturned (for those who forget: Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992) we've lost freedom from government intereference in reproductive choice.\n\nIt's not about abortion. It's about who gets to make the decisions. Right now, it's the individual. But if the Supreme Court decides that reproductive rights are not fundamental rights, and thus subject to state regulation, try to imagine what could happen.\n\nNew York could pass a law saying that anyone making less than $30K per year cannot have children, and must abort any pregnancy, because they obviously cannot support them financially. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. It's up to the states to decide.\n\nSouth Dakota has already outlawed abortion, even in the case of rape or incest or permanent harm to the mother. Then, they decide that they have too little population, and require every female under the age of 28 who is not celibate to have at least one child. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected.\n\nOr North Carolina or Texas decides that convicted felons should never have children, and starts imposing mandatory sterilization as part of criminal sentences. No constitutional challenge, because reproductive rights are no longer nationally protected. Let the states decide. Right?\n\nOnce the right to reproductive privacy is taken away by the court, it will be decades before it can be reestablished. Conservatives better start praying, if they get their wish, that during that time they don't become the minority under a legislation that decides to require abortions. Because, once that right to personal choice is lost, the government will always be able to decide whether you can have children or not.\n\nDo people really want to live in a country where state legislatures can decide who can be pregnant, and who cannot, and who must?  Do people really have that much trust and faith in government that they think the legislature will always make the right choices? Because we'll be stuck with those decisions.\n\nWhy can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?
356011
I have not heard about this, but how it has saddened me that a whole childhood has now been lost. I wonder how she will ever cope. Of course the questions come to mind, where were her parents, where did she get the alcohol, who gave it to her etc. But what concerned me most was what type of person ( if not another young, immature child) would take advantage of a child that age no matter what state or condition she was in. God my daughter is 11 the thought of pregnancy at that age terrifies me let alone the reality. Where were the responsible adults. I hope if the other party to this was old enough to know better, he gets whats coming to him. The decisions and responsibilities this child is now faced with are far to heavy for her to even comprehend. There effects will be far reaching. How can one expect an 11 yr old child to understand those actions or the consequences. Good lord this has made me so very sad. We will be praying for her physical and emotional safety and well being. Plse do the same.
356487
All it proves is that they have enough people that want to see it on the ballot. That doesn't prove that the majority wants it to be legal. In fact, polls consistently show that Americans hold pro-life viewpoints in most pregnancy cases, and that viewpoint continues to grow. Remember, Roe v. Wade wasn't voted on by the people, either. It was the result of action be liberal, activist Supreme Court justices.
197702
The primary reason some states do not require parental notification from minors seeking abortions is because the State has deemed it an "undue burden" on the minor to get this notification. \n\nOne of the ultimate goals of the State is to protect the lives of its citizens. Sometimes an "undue burden" can affect that goal. In many caes, minors are so afraid to tell their parents that they require an abortion, the minor would rather choose death than seek parental notification. This is also to keep minors from fleeing their homes out of fear of discovery when they are still too young.\n\nBut it is still open for debate. As you've seen, some states believe there is an undue burden, others do not.
394032
So far, all I've heard is a lot of responses to a terrorist question, but everyone is responding to the word abortion. People hear abortion and get stuck on it, and get off track of the original issue. I'm with you...lisagirl, so far. Mr. Scholar, when people ask and respond here, they don't "talk" they type. Maybe you should change you name to uneducated.
69713
So much for Democrats complaining about too many constitutional amendments.\n\nWith or without the interpretation which allows any abortions, the Constitutional amendment would fail. It won't even make it out of Congress, much less make it to the states.
205566
The short answer is that we don't know.  The number of illegal abortions took a nosedive after Roe v Wade, of course, but there is no tracking mechanism for illegal abortions since there is no reporting mechanism.