Supreme Court tackles abortion law

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday 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.\nThe 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.\nThe 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.\nSeveral 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.\nAt the same time, the court appeared unhappy with lower court decisions that blocked the law from being enforced at all.\n"This case doesn't involve an emergency situation," Roberts said.\nThe 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.\nAbortion 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.\nProtesters 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.\nNew 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.\nDoctors 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.\n"That's the real problem here for the doctor who's on the line," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.\nThe law allows a judge to waive the requirement, and Justice Antonin Scalia said, "It takes 30 seconds to place a phone call."\n"It seems to me that the bypass procedure can go a long way toward saving this statute," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said.\nTracking down a judge and making the case for a waiver could take too long, said Jennifer Dalven, attorney for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England which sued before the law took effect.\n"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."\nIf 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.\nA Senate vote is planned for January on Alito, who is expected to be more receptive to abortion restrictions than O'Connor.\nWhen 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.\nThe 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.