http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

CBS News Poll. July 29-Aug. 2, 2005. N=1,222 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"What is your personal feeling about abortion? (1) It should be permitted in all cases. (2) It should be permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now. (3) It should be permitted only in cases such as rape, incest and to save the woman's life. OR, (4) It should only be permitted to save the woman's life."

7/29 - 8/2/05

All Cases 28%

Greater Restrictions 15%

Rape, Incest, save Woman's Life 33%

Only Woman's Life 15%

Never 5%

Unsure 4%

"More than thirty years ago, the Supreme Court's decision in Roe versus Wade established a constitutional right for women to obtain legal abortions in this country. In general, do you think the Court's decision was a good thing or a bad thing?"

All/Republicans/Democrats/Independents

Good Thing 60%/ 41%/ 73%/ 64%

Bad Thing 35%/ 55%/ 22%/ 30%

Both 1%/ 2%/ 1%/ 1%

Unsure 4%/ 2%/ 4%/ 5%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. July 22-24, 2005. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"

7/22-24/05

Pro-Choice 51%

Pro-Life 42%

Mixed/Neither 3%

Don't Know What Terms Mean 3%

Unsure 1%

Michigan court strikes down state law on "so-called partial birth abortion"

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...ST&f=16&t=37721

If you do not like abortions, do not have one.

The extreme right wants to return women to the days of, "Kept at home barefoot and pregnant."

Nat'l Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft

The 2nd Court of Appeals (in New York City) hears the National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft, a case about the constitutionality of the 2003 partial birth abortion ban. (a summary of the three previous lower court cases that found the law unconstitutional.)
10/11/2005: NEW YORK, NEW YORK: 35 min.

video at http://www.c-span.org search videos for "abortion"

C-span ran this video several times this week.

The government lawyer from the Justice Dept. was not very good. She said the judges should take the word of Congress and the republican "witnesses" who said that so-called partial birth procedure is never necessary even for a health of the woman. A "D&E" can be used. One judge said why don't we ban that procedure too because the baby dies in that procedure.

The opposition lawyer said that the society of obstetricians (44,000 members) held the opposite view. That was not just a "few" doctors as the republicans claim.

This case is similar but different from the current Supreme Court case about parental notice for partial birth abortions which will be heard soon.

More video about the abortion issue related to Harriet Miers.

Karen Pearl, Interim Pres., Planned Parenthood
Karen Pearl, Interim President of Planned Parenthood, discusses abortion and the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination.
10/10/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 30 min.

Wendy Wright, Exec. V.P., Concerned Women for America
Wendy Wright, Executive Vice President of Concerned Women for America, discusses abortion and the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination.
10/10/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 30 min.

http://www.c-span.org [search for videos in center of page query box]

I heard today that several southern judges are refusing to hear court cases for minor girls who need parental approval or judicial approval to get an abortion.

The state laws require prior approval.

PBS Frontline has a program on the status of abortion.

Now on PBS.

Frontline is going through all the court challenges to Roe v Wade and all the christian opposition.

Americans United for Life (AUL) is the oldest pro-life organization and initiates law suits in every state. Their strategy is to fight state by state. Some states have no abortion clinics. Some have 1 clinic.

Mississippi has 1 clinic left after 10 state laws were passed.

60 percent of the Mississippi women needing abortions go out of state. The out-of state clinic sees patients in a 200 mile radius. Doctors are scarce because they are harrassed.

SUE AXON of Baguley, Manchester, (BBC news online today), has begun a fight to win the right to know if her child is ever referred to a clinic for an abortion. She regrets having had an abortion at the age of 30 and wants the right to try and give her child the benefit of her experience. I would think that this might bring more people together in agreement with what seems a totally reasonable request. After all the governments of the USA and Britain, while pretending to be for family values, are acting like Big Father. This is not a healthy state of affairs IMHO. I know that there are cases of incest, but these are rare. The child who tells both parents of her predicament has more chance of getting charges against her father(or other relative) for raping her... A quiet abortion increases the risk of guilt afterwards, shame, and covering-up. A burden shared is a burden halved.

The PBS Frontline show "The last abortion clinic" re-aired Thursday morning at 4 AM.

More info is at http://www.pbs.org

87 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion services

800 state laws have been written restricting abortions since Roe v Wade.

Mississippi passed a law that requires the one abortion clinic to have facilities that even hospitals don't have and requires doctors to get hospital privelages at local hospitals. Most of the doctors are from out of state and cannot get local privelages.

Most states including Mississippi won't allow abortions in state hospitals and won't pay for abortions under Medicaid. The abortion clinic is the only resort for poor women who cannot travel 200 miles. Mississipi offers "crisis centers" where women go to get religious support and a voluntary sonogram to show the "person" inside. The women are given no birth control information and no referral to an abortion clinic. [During the Katrina disaster, I heard that Mississippi has the highest population of poor. Frontline says Mississippi has one of the highest unplanned birth rates.]

The pro-life supporters only care about the invitro baby. Some provide one-time support for after birth (diapers, strollers). Then the right wing complains about the high number of single medicaid and welfare mothers.

The other state has a 24 hour notice law so the patient has to come back twice. This is even more difficult for poor women without transportation. One state has a 48 hour notice law.

Another state mandates a sonogram.

The state laws are chipping away at the legal law and making it an undue burden for women.

The NH state law about parental notification (both parents must be notified) has no "health" restriction in it. The only way to do without the wait is if the girl/woman is dying. This case will be heard in SCOTUS on Nov 30. SCOTUS chief Roberts could change the "undue burden" clause and thus open the door for more state laws like these.

It won't matter that Roe is legal; state laws will make an abortion impossible. One abortion clinic manager said we are losing the battle.

Unless women wake up, the christian right will backhandly eliminate abortions and no one will notice until it is too late.

Another strike at women's rights....

Ind. Court Upholds Abortion Waiting Period

Updated 12:15 PM ET November 23, 2005
By DEANNA MARTIN

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8e2a7og1&src=ap

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - The Indiana Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a law that requires women seeking an abortion to get counseling about medical risks and alternatives, and to wait at least 18 hours after the session before going through with the procedure.

The court ruled in a 4-1 vote that opponents of the law could not pursue their lawsuit, which argued that privacy is a core right under the state constitution that extends to women seeking to end their pregnancies.

The court said such a challenge would fail because the law "does not impose a material burden on any right to privacy or abortion that may be provided or protected" under the state constitution.

The court said it was not ruling on whether the state constitution included a right to privacy or abortion.

The state attorney general's office argued before the court in June that privacy was not a specific right enforceable by Indiana courts and said the General Assembly has broad discretion in passing laws.

Sarah Rittman, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Steve Carter, said the office would have no comment on the ruling.

"We're disappointed," said Fran Quigley, executive director of Indiana Civil Liberties Union. He said the law poses a financial burden for some women because it forces them to make two trips to a clinic that in many cases is not in their home county.

Quigley said his group would discuss with the abortion providers who filed the lawsuit whether to seek another hearing before the state Supreme Court, which has the final say in the matter because it concerns the state constitution.

Federal courts have upheld the 1995 law, which didn't go into effect until 2003 because of court challenges.

The state lawsuit, filed by abortion providers, was dismissed by a Marion County judge, but the Court of Appeals had ruled that they could continue their challenge.

Abortion counseling is required in 31 states, and 23 states also require a subsequent waiting period _ usually 24 hours, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that researches reproductive health issues. Indiana is one of only six states that requires the counseling sessions to be conducted in person.

Counseling requirements are waived when there is a medical emergency.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The audio of the Supreme Court hearing on the NH abortion case (48 hour parental notification) will be aired on C-span 1 at 12:15 PM today. The actual hearing is around 10 AM today. This will be the first audio of Chief Justice Roberts.

C-span also ran a PEW forum with two legal experts yesterday and a 45 minute segment today with two other experts on Washington Journal. Videos are at http://www.c-span.org.

Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
8 minutes ago

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_...HNlYwN5bmNhdA--

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with how to handle a New Hampshire law that requires a parent be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy, an emotional showdown in the court's first abortion rights case in five years.

New Chief Justice John Roberts seemed sympathetic to the state, but other justices said they were troubled that the law does not make an exception for minors who have a medical emergency.

At the same time, the court did not appear satisfied with an appeals court ruling that struck down the law, one of dozens around the country that require parental involvement when a teen seeks an abortion.

Although the case does not challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that said abortion is a fundamental constitutional right, the stakes are still significant and could signal where the high court is headed under Roberts and after the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Abortion was a prominent subject in Roberts' confirmation hearings and has emerged as a major issue in President Bush's nomination of appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace O'Connor, who has been the swing vote in support of abortion rights.

As protesters demonstrated outside, the argument inside the court was at times contentious, with justices talking over each other and over the lawyers.

New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte struggled to field sharp questions on why the state made an exception to allow abortions when a mother's life — but not her health — is in danger.

The court has said before that abortion restrictions should include a health exception.

O'Connor, along with Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, zeroed in on how doctors would avoid being prosecuted or sued if they performed an abortion if a severely sick minor did not want to notify a parent and a judge was unavailable to provide the necessary approval.

"That's the real problem here for the doctor who's on the line," Ginsburg said.

Justice Antonin Scalia, however, said: "It takes 30 seconds to place a phone call" to a judge.

If Alito is confirmed by the Senate early next year his vote could be needed to break a tie in the case, although justices may find a consensus in resolving the appeal without a landmark decision. For example, justices could tell the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to review the matter again.

A Senate vote is planned for January on Alito, who is expected to be more receptive to abortion restrictions than O'Connor.

When Alito worked for the Reagan administration in the 1980s, he said that he hoped the Supreme Court would one day overturn Roe. In a memo released by the National Archives on Wednesday, Alito said that because a reversal was unlikely the Reagan administration should instead try to persuade justices to accept state regulations on abortions.

The court could use this case to make it extremely difficult for abortion rights groups to challenge restrictions, without dealing with the sticky issue of overturning Roe itself. At issue is the legal standard for courts in handling lawsuits over abortion laws.

The New Hampshire case is being closely watched by states that require minors to tell a parent or get permission before having an abortion. Justices were told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19 states, including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.

The court is considering whether the 2003 New Hampshire law puts an "undue burden" on a woman in choosing to end a pregnancy. O'Connor is an architect of the undue burden standard, and was the deciding vote in the last abortion case five years ago, when justices ruled that a Nebraska law banning a type of late-term abortion was too burdensome.

That law, like the one at issue Wednesday, did not have an exception to protect the mother's health.

The New Hampshire law requires a parent or guardian be notified when an abortion is planned for someone under 18, followed by a 48-hour waiting period. A judge can waive the requirement.

"In an emergency, a woman needs to go to the hospital not a courthouse," justices were told in a filing by Jennifer Dalven, attorney for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England which challenged the law.

The high court agreed to allow news organizations to air audio recording of the court's argument immediately after its conclusion, giving the public its first chance to hear the new chief justice on the bench. Cameras are not allowed in the court.

Roberts, 50, replaced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in September after a yearlong fight with cancer.

Justices agreed to hear the New Hampshire case before Rehnquist's death — and before O'Connor surprised colleagues with news that she was stepping down.

The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.

___

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

C-span is showing the press conferences from earlier.

High court case may signal shift on abortion

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20..._x.htm?csp=N009

Sabrina Holmquist trained as a physician in low-income neighborhoods in the Bronx, N.Y. She says she often saw pregnant teenagers in desperate health and family crises, including some girls who had been abused at home. That, Holmquist says, led her to believe that doctors sometimes should be able to perform abortions on minors without informing a parent.

But in Texas, Linda W. Flower, who practiced obstetrics for two decades, disagrees. She says that in the vast majority of cases in which a teenage girl seeks an abortion, a parent's guidance is helpful and needed. Flower says she knows of young women who have regretted having abortions.

The doctors' views reflect the dueling arguments in the first abortion case to come before the Supreme Court in five years: a New Hampshire dispute that tests whether a state may bar physicians from performing an abortion on a girl younger than 18 unless one of her parents has been notified at least 48 hours in advance — even in instances in which the girl faces a health emergency.

The case, to be heard by the court Wednesday, is the first abortion dispute before the justices since 2000, when they voted 5-4 to strike down Nebraska's ban on a procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortion because the ban lacked an exception for cases in which the woman's health was at risk. The new dispute tests whether such a health exception should be required in parental-involvement mandates, which have been passed in various forms by 43 states. (Related: Case could test Court)

The New Hampshire case arrives at the court when the judicial and political landscape surrounding the sensitive issue of abortion could be shifting, perhaps toward an era of more restrictions on the procedure. For now at least, the right to abortion established by the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 is not the issue. But changes in the court's membership raise the possibility that a more conservative bench could begin to view restrictions on abortion more favorably.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative whose precise views on abortion rights are unclear, joined the bench last month in place of the late William Rehnquist, a conservative who opposed abortion rights. And on deck for the court is conservative federal Judge Samuel Alito, who would replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. She has joined with the court's four liberal members to limit state restrictions on abortion.

Alito would take part in the New Hampshire case only if the court had not decided it by the time he was confirmed by the Senate and the case had to be argued again. If he is confirmed to replace O'Connor and winds up taking a narrow view of abortion rights — as his record as a judge and government lawyer suggests — he could move the court toward allowing more restrictions on abortion.

Because of "the conservative trend in national politics ... we do stand on a precipice right now" with regard to regulation of abortion, says Susan Cohen, director of government affairs at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which has gathered data on abortion and women's reproductive issues for four decades.

Leading Democrats such as New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean are reaching out to voters who oppose abortion by softening the party's rhetoric in support of abortion rights and trying to mute Republican criticism that Democrats' stance devalues life.

Clinton referred in January to the "sad, even tragic choice" of abortion, and suggested that Democrats show they are trying to diminish the number of abortions while protecting abortion rights. This month, Dean told MSNBC that he avoids using the term "pro-choice" to describe his party's stance on abortion because "it implies you're not pro-life. ... There are a lot of pro-life Democrats. We respect them, but we believe the government should ... stay out of the personal lives of families and women."

That approach seems to reflect public opinion polls that show most Americans support abortion rights but also favor restrictions. In a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll this month, 16% of those surveyed said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. Sixty-nine percent said a girl younger than 18 should have to get a parent's consent before having an abortion, and 64% said a married woman who seeks an abortion should have to notify her husband. (Related: Poll results)

Outside opinions

New Hampshire is among 18 states that have passed laws requiring at least one parent to be notified when a minor daughter seeks an abortion. Twenty-five other states have gone a step further, requiring parental consent for an abortion to be performed in such cases. New Hampshire, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota and Wyoming have parental-involvement laws that do not allow exceptions for health emergencies.

Because it has landed at the court at what appears to be a pivotal time for abortion rights, the New Hampshire case —Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood - has stirred passions among medical professionals, religious groups, government leaders and others who have combined to submit 31 "friend of the court" briefs.

"Any situation where the legal system stands between a woman and her physician is inappropriate and dangerous," says Holmquist, who practices at a University of Chicago clinic and is active in Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, an abortion rights doctors' group that signed on to a "friend of the court" brief opposing New Hampshire's law.

She is particularly concerned about pregnant teens who are afraid to tell a parent about their situation out of fear they might be beaten or thrown out of the house. She also says that in health emergencies, there often isn't enough time to notify a parent.

Some of her concerns are echoed in a brief filed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical organizations that say the New Hampshire law "would force physicians to violate ethical and professional obligations by requiring them to delay critical treatment in a medical emergency."

Flower, who is a family practitioner in a clinic for indigent patients in the Houston area and is active in a Christian doctors' group, counters that health problems in pregnant teens often are exaggerated. She says health exceptions to abortion regulations have ended up permitting "abortion in any case, even if the mother simply isn't feeling good that day."

She adds that doctors should "help the women think beyond the crisis of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. Parents are the ones ... who can help (minors) look to the future."

The Supreme Court generally has been in step with public opinion on abortion rights, finding that it should be legal nationwide while allowing some state restrictions. There have been exceptions.

Although most Americans support requiring a husband to be notified if his wife seeks an abortion, the court struck down such a law in 1992 as a violation of a woman's constitutional right to end a pregnancy. The court rejected a stance that Alito had taken as a member of a U.S. appeals court.

At the time, the Supreme Court noted that it had upheld parental notification or consent requirements, which it said were "based on the quite reasonable assumption that minors will benefit from consultation with their parents and that children will often not realize that their parents have their best interests at heart."

That's why the question in the New Hampshire case is not so much the validity of a parental-notice law, but whether such a law must allow exceptions for when a girl's health is at stake. Equally significant, the dispute will test whether a new abortion restriction can be broadly challenged before it has taken effect, or only after women can claim they have been harmed by it. New Hampshire's 2003 law is not being enforced while it is being challenged.

Exceptions to the rule

The case before the high court is an appeal from New Hampshire of a ruling by a federal appeals court that rejected the state's law. The appeals court said the law was invalid without a health exception, as required by the Supreme Court's ruling that struck down Nebraska's ban on the procedure that opponents term "partial birth" abortion.

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, New Hampshire — backed by the Bush administration — says no health exception is necessary for a parental-notice law.

The brief by state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte emphasizes "the benefit of parental guidance and assistance" in making "a difficult choice." It says "a health exception is only required when there is substantial medical authority that supports the proposition that a specific regulation could pose a significant risk to women's health."

Ayotte said a teen in a medical crisis who does not want to notify a parent may go before a judge and argue that she is mature enough to decide on her own. "There is no reason to believe that a judge will not act immediately if a (girl's) health is at stake," Ayotte wrote.

But several groups that track social services, including the Center for Adolescent Health and the Law, have told the Supreme Court that girls who seek to take advantage of "judicial bypass" — which the court has required in past cases involving parental notification and consent issues — often encounter delays, uninformed court personnel and other bureaucratic hurdles.

Planned Parenthood, represented by American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Jennifer Dalven, has cited health problems that can arise when a pregnant teen cannot be treated quickly in an emergency, including damage to the liver, kidneys and other organs; fluid in the lungs; and infertility.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says in its brief that although such problems generally affect fewer than 10% of all pregnancies, they can affect "substantial numbers" of pregnant minors.

US abortion rights in the balance?
By Clare Murphy
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4450390.stm

from the November 30, 2005 edition
Court weighs girls' access to abortion
The tribunal hears a case Wednesday on a state's parental-notification law.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1130/p01s04-usju.html

Abortion returns to high court's docket
Justices to hear two high-profile cases this week
From Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, November 30, 2005; Posted: 1:04 p.m. EST (18:04 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/29/scotus.abortion/index.html


Editorial
The Next Abortion Decision
Published: November 30, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/opinion/30wed1.html

THE NEXT JUSTICE
Alito and Abortion
Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but he shouldn't say if he'd overturn it.
BY ROGER PILON
Monday, November 28, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007606


Documents Reveal More About Alito's Views By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
52 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130/ap_on_...m4yBHNlYwNmYw--

Justices Weigh Parental Notification Law

Updated 7:11 PM ET November 30, 2005

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pr...8e73v801&src=ap

By GINA HOLLAND

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday wrestled with a New Hampshire law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy, with no hint the justices were ready for a dramatic retreat on abortion rights under their new chief.

The court is dealing with its first abortion case in five years, as well as the first in the brief tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts.

The case does not challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that declared abortion a fundamental constitutional right, and the justices seemed to be seeking a compromise that would avoid breaking new ground.

Several said the law was flawed, because it requires that a parent be informed 48 hours before a minor child has an abortion but makes no exception for a medical emergency that threatens the youth's health.

At the same time, the court appeared unhappy with lower court decisions that blocked the law from being enforced at all.

"This case doesn't involve an emergency situation," Roberts said.

The stakes are significant since the ruling could signal where the high court is headed under Roberts and after the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Abortion was a prominent subject in Roberts' confirmation hearings and has emerged as a major issue in President Bush's nomination of appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace O'Connor, who has been the swing vote in support of abortion rights.

Protesters demonstrated outside _ singing, chanting and praying _ and the argument inside the court was at times contentious, too, with justices talking over each other and over the lawyers.

New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte struggled to field sharp questions on why state lawmakers had made an exception to allow abortions when a young mother's life _ but not her health _ was in danger. The court has held that abortion restrictions should include a health exception.

Doctors would fear being prosecuted or sued if they performed an abortion on a severely sick minor who did not want to notify a parent, several justices said.

"That's the real problem here for the doctor who's on the line," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The law allows a judge to waive the requirement, and Justice Antonin Scalia said: "It takes 30 seconds to place a phone call."

"It seems to me that the bypass procedure can go a long way toward saving this statute," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.

Tracking down a judge and making the case for a waiver could take too long, said Jennifer Dalven, arguing for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England which sued before the law took effect.

"For women in some emergencies, every minute is critical. Every minute puts them at risk of losing their future fertility and of major organ damage," she said. "I don't think saving a statute is worth putting a teen's health at risk."

If Alito is confirmed by the Senate early next year his vote could be needed to break a tie in the case, although the justices may find a consensus in resolving the appeal without a landmark decision. For example, they could tell the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to review the matter again and issue a more limited ruling.

A Senate vote is planned for January on Alito, who is expected to be more receptive to abortion restrictions than O'Connor.

When Alito worked for the Reagan administration, he criticized Roe v. Wade. In a memo released by the National Archives on Wednesday, Alito said that because a reversal of Roe was unlikely, the Reagan administration should instead try to persuade justices to accept state limits on abortions.

The New Hampshire case is being closely watched by states that require minors to tell a parent or get permission before having an abortion. The justices were told that 24 states mandate a parent's approval and 19, including New Hampshire, demand parental notice.

The Bush administration is backing New Hampshire, and Solicitor General Paul Clement told the court that "it's literally a one in 1,000 possibility that there's going to be an emergency" and problem under the law.

The court is considering whether the 2003 New Hampshire law puts an "undue burden" on a woman in choosing to end a pregnancy. O'Connor is an architect of the undue burden standard, and was the deciding vote in the last abortion case five years ago, when the justices ruled that a Nebraska law banning a type of late-term abortion was too burdensome. That law did not have an exception to protect the mother's health.

The case was one of two dealing with abortion at the court on Wednesday. In a second, the justices considered whether federal extortion and racketeering laws can be used to sue abortion clinic demonstrators.

Another major case awaiting justices is the Bush administration's appeal of a lower court ruling that struck down a federal ban on a procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortions. The federal law has no health exception.

The high court agreed to allow news organizations to air an audio recording of the court's argument in the New Hampshire case, giving the public away from the court its first chance to hear the new chief justice on the bench. Cameras are not allowed in the court.

Roberts, 50, replaced Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in September after a yearlong fight with cancer.

The justices agreed to hear the New Hampshire case before Rehnquist's death _ and before O'Connor surprised colleagues with news that she was stepping down.

O'Connor was not particularly active in the hour-long argument, and her vote will count only if she is still on the court when the ruling is made. She suggested there might be a way to deal with the lack of a health exception, without blocking the law entirely.

The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 04-1144.

___

On the Net:

Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

The oral arguments are replaying on C-span 2 right now.

We got a republican fund raising letter today [letter dated December 5, 2005].

This is for a new law:

Life at Conception Act.

The letter is from the new Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), representing the National Pro-Life Alliance, 4521 Windsor Arms Court, Annandale, VA 22003-9916

The letter includes preprinted petitions to Senators Frist, Santorum, and Specter and Representatives Hastert and Tim Murphy.

They ask for donations of $15 to $1000 so they can mail out 1 million petitions.[from what we have received before, this is typical for right wing groups]

Their goal is to “bypass Roe v Wade and protect unborn children from abortion.”

The law “declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.”

“If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can ultimately win passage of a Life at Conception Act and send it to President Bush’s desk.”

“But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn’t pass immediately, the public attention will send another crew of radical abortionists down to defeat in the next elections.” [Note they use this divisive tactic in every election]

The national Pro-Life Alliance will run:

*** “Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.”

*** “Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file national Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.”

*** “A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1706 daily newspapers now published in the United States.”

*** “An extensive direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the ones enclosed with this letter.”

“Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money. Just to mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000. Newspaper, TV and radio are even more expensive. But I’m sure you’ll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the killing continue.”
------------------------------

We got another letter today [dated December 8, 2005] from the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), an anti-abortion group at 1420 King Street, Suite 550, Alexandria, VA 22314. They are raising funds to help Judge Alito get to the Supreme Court.

They demonize George Soros, MoveOn.Org, NARAL, left-wing senators, left wing pro-abortion groups, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, and NOW.

They want a pro-life Supreme Court to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.

They would make it a crime for doctors to perform abortions, no?

I certainly see this as an ideal position, but Republicans might argue that their position is a responsibility position-plus because given that an individual has accepted the responsibility of having sex --- and getting pregnant --- then he or she bears the burden of that responsibility --- and as such may not interfere with the life brought into being by their actions...

Another concern I have with this point of view is that of a mistaken pregnancy --- where contraception is used, but it fails...can one get an abortion then? The parties tried to bheave responsibly and it did not work?

If these individuals are allowed to get an abortion, how can one preclude anyone?

The other problem with the Republican point of view --- is I do not know anyone who plans to get pregnant and then ends up getting an abortion. Women who get abortions do not do such things lightly. They know what they are doing to suggest tthat in having an abortion are behaving irresponsibly again places all the stigma on the woman.

What about the instance when the woman is misled --- the guy keeps telling her that indeed he'll support a child if she has it --- and then he changes his mind --- and leaves the woman. Throws her out of their shared residence...

She no longer feels anything for the man --- and she does not want his child --- and does not want to even bring the child to term --- should she have to bring it to term under your responsibility scenario?

Morality is to be left to the individual IMHO --- and for this reason the responsibility platform may sound nice --- but in practice I do not believe it would work?

How do you decide whether someone has behaved responsibly or not?

Do they have to have a lie detector test?

Isn't the responsibility position just another way to stigmatize the woman?

She may be right that abortion was the issue and not security moms --- I do not know --- but what I do know is that had Kerry run a presidential campaign which focused from start to finish on security and questioning Bush's ability to handle it --- the outcome likely would have been different...

I believe at a minimum abortion opponents said heck --- we vote for Bush --- abortion is our number one issue --- and Kerry hasn't made the case that he would be a better leader on security issues...that argument I could buy -- but if Kerry made a credible argument Bush was incompetent on security issues there is no doubt in my mind Kerry would have one and at least some of those anti-abortion votes would have left Bush too...

June 22, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Why Pro-Choice Is a Bad Choice for Democrats
By MELINDA HENNEBERGER
Washington

NEW YORK TIMES

I KEEP reading about a universe in which social conservatives are warming to Rudy Giuliani. But this would have to be a place where his estranged children and three wives and multiple appearances in fishnets were irrelevant to the Republican base. Where the nice gay couple he moved in with between marriages would be asked to appear in the film montage at the nominating convention in St. Paul.

Even in the real world, a pro-choice Republican nominee would be a gift to the Democrats, because the Republican Party wins over so many swing voters on abortion alone. Which is why Fred Thompson, who is against abortion rights, is getting so much grateful attention from his party now. And why, despite wide opposition to the war in Iraq, Democrats must still win back such voters to take the White House next year.

Over 18 months, I traveled to 20 states listening to women of all ages, races, tax brackets and points of view speak at length on the issues they care about heading into ’08. They convinced me that the conventional wisdom was wrong about the last presidential contest, that Democrats did not lose support among women because “security moms” saw President Bush as the better protector against terrorism. What first-time defectors mentioned most often was abortion.

Why would that be, given that Roe v. Wade was decided almost 35 years ago? Opponents of abortion rights saw 2004 as the chance of a lifetime to overturn Roe, with a movement favorite already in the Oval Office and several spots on the Supreme Court likely to open up. A handful of Catholic bishops spoke out more plainly than in any previous election season and moved the Catholic swing vote that Al Gore had won in 2000 to Mr. Bush.

The standard response from Democratic leaders has been that anyone lost to them over this issue is not coming back — and that regrettable as that might be, there is nothing to be done. But that is not what I heard from these voters.

Many of them, Catholic women in particular, are liberal, deep-in-their-heart Democrats who support social spending, who opposed the war from the start and who cross their arms over their chests reflexively when they say the word “Republican.” Some could fairly be described as desperate to find a way home. And if the party they’d prefer doesn’t send a car for them, with a really polite driver, it will have only itself to blame.

What would it take to win them back? Respect, for starters — and not only on the night of the candidate forum on faith. As it turns out, you cannot call people extremists and expect them to vote for you. But real respect would require an understanding that what supporters of abortion rights genuinely see as a hard-earned freedom, opponents genuinely see as a self-inflicted wound and — though I can feel some of you tensing as you read this — a human rights issue comparable to slavery.

Again and again, these voters said Democrats are too unwilling to tolerate dissent on abortion. It is a point of orthodoxy no more open to debate within the party than the ordination of women is in Rome.

Democratic Party leaders should also stop pushing the perception that Republicans are natural defenders of the faithful. For years, they have done just that by tirelessly portraying our current president as this committed — indeed, obsessed — pro-lifer who would stop at nothing to see Roe overturned. Karl Rove couldn’t have said it better himself; this was better advertising than hard money could buy.

Today, in a similarly oblivious way, the leading Democratic presidential contenders are condemning the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold a ban on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. An overwhelming majority of Americans, polls show, support a ban. Legal scholars have underscored the narrowness of the ruling in the partial-birth case, Gonzales v. Carhart, which does not even outlaw all late-term abortions. Yet the leading Democratic candidates, all of whom are lawyers, choose to overstate its impact.

Hillary Clinton called the decision “a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that ... recognized the importance of women’s health.” Barack Obama echoed that it “dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.” Though John Edwards was one of only two United States senators who did not cast a vote on the bill in 2003, he, too, found the decision to uphold that law “ill-considered and sweeping,” and “a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election.”

Actually, it is a stark reminder of how fully capable they all are of losing it. A Democratic senator I spoke with recently did not see the disconnect between public opinion and the party’s position on Carhart as any reason to worry: “Make no mistake; this is a pro-choice country, period.”

But in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, 41 percent of respondents favored stricter limits on abortion, with an additional 23 percent saying it should not be permitted at all.

What are we to make of all this? Surely at a minimum that our enduring reluctance to acknowledge the complexity of the abortion issue has only prolonged and hardened the debate. Most Americans fall somewhere between the extremes of “never” and “no problem” when it comes to abortion.

What polling can’t capture and politicians won’t hear is the voice of the nun I interviewed who considers herself pro-choice — and has been disciplined by her diocese as a result — because she does not think abortion is wrong for rape victims. Or the voices of the many women I spoke to who hold far more expansive views yet call themselves pro-life. Most people differentiate between a fetus in the early weeks of development and at nearly full term, and draw the line at a procedure that Democratic Senator Pat Moynihan regarded as infanticide.

Would Democrats who hate Carhart really switch parties or stay home on Election Day if their leaders began to acknowledge such distinctions? After the last seven years, I don’t think so. Yes, the abortion-rights lobby has raised a lot of money since the ban, but the statements of the Democratic candidates will cost them, too. This issue has been very, very good to the Republican Party — and there is plenty more where that came from.

Melinda Henneberger is the author of “If They Only Listened to Us: What Women Voters Want Politicians to Hear.”