High court refuses parental consent case

By Tom Strode - Mar 31, 2005 - comment

The U.S. Supreme Court turned back an effort to uphold an Idaho law that required parental consent before an under-age girl could have an abortion.

The high court announced without comment March 28 it would not review a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that Idaho’s parental-consent law was unconstitutional. The appeals court, which is based in San Francisco, decided in July a “medical emergency” provision in the law permitting abortion without a parent’s consent was too narrow.

There are 33 other states that have enacted laws that are truly effective in requiring parental consent or notification before a minor’s abortion, according to the National Right to Life Committee. The appeals court ruling in the Idaho case should not impact the parental involvement laws of other states, unless they also are in the Ninth Circuit and have medical exceptions that are as strict as that of Idaho.

The Idaho law, which affects females under 18 years of age, defines “medical emergency” as a “sudden and unexpected physical condition.” Because this definition is narrower than that permitted under Supreme Court rulings, the provision, as well as the law itself, must be invalidated, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit said.

The case was Wasden v. Planned Parenthood of Idaho.

The Ninth Circuit consists of federal district courts in these states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, as well as Idaho.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Abortion, Citizenship, Legislation

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com