Pro-choice advocates are challenging the state?s new law that requires minors to notify parents before getting an abortion.
Earlier today/ Yesterday they filed a long-expected suit in federal court.
New Hampshire Public Radio?s Dan Gorenstein reports.
Abortion rights activists argue New Hampshire?s version of the law is unconstitutional.
Nearly 30 states require some form of parental involvement in abortion cases.
But the plaintiffs say many of those states remove the requirement if the young woman?s health is at risk.
Northern New England?s Planned Parenthood Jennifer Frizzell says this state didn?t include the same language.
Track 3
1:56 the law we challenge today dangerously interferes with doctors ability to preserve the health of patients, the law requires a 48 hr. delay, even when the delay would cause serious and irreparable harm to the young woman, including, infertility, seizures and kidney or liver damage.
The plaintiffs believe without a health exemption, the courts will strike down the law.
And have asked the court to block it from taking effect on January 1st.
Republican Representative Phyllis Woods can?t think of a worse outcome.
Woods, one of the lead sponsors of the legislation, says lawmakers intentionally left out a health exception.
She says that provision would make for a totally useless law.
3:08 the health exception is so broadly defined that in most cases, it is construed to be emotional, or financial health, by virtue of being pregnant a woman?s health is compromised...that are not serious reasons to terminate a pregnancy.
Citizens for Life executive director Roger Stenson expected a court challenges.
But he?s optimistic.
He points to a US Supreme Court decision upholding a Minnesota law that didn?t provide a health exception.
3:50 the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So I would recommend for anyone?s consumption a reading fo the Supreme Court decision on the parental notice statue in Minnesota...that is in black and white, and it can not be obfuscated by wild execrations from abortion providers.
Plaintiffs, however, cite their own legal precedent.
A recent federal court in Colorado threw out that state?s law because it failed to protect a woman?s health.
Lead attorney for the New Hampshire Plaintiffs, the ACLU?s Jennifer Dalven.
Track 4
:04 the SC has made it very clear for states, that you may pass a parental notice law for abortion, but you must have an exception to protect the health and life of young women, so you must have an exception that allows a doctor to proceed with an immediate abortion when in good faith in their medical judgment, they believe a delay will result in the harm of a young woman.
Harvard Professor of Health Policy and Law Michelle Mellow says there are two seemingly conflicting decisions because the court?s considered two separate questions.
The Minnesota case, says the professor, focused on whether 48 hours was a reasonable time for a young woman to discuss having an abortion with her parents.
In the Colorado case, she says the analysis focused on whether a woman?s health would be at risk over a 48 hour waiting period.
Mellow said, in light of the Supreme Court?s ruling in the Minnesota case, there are two reasons for plaintiff optimism.
3:03 number one we have a slightly different membership on the court. And number two the papers in this case seems to have done a better job of fleshing out the medical issues associated with a waiting period.
After Colorado?s parental notification law was nullified, the legislature passed a similar law that included the health provision.
When asked whether the same would happen in New Hampshire, a member of state Senate leadership demurred.
He said, with the legislature so evenly divided, it could go either way.
For NHPR News, I?m DG.
