A few years ago, the State of New Hampshire exercised an, old quaint governmental function known as “the legislative process” to require minors seeking an abortion to notify their parent or guardian two before the deed. Not to seek permission; merely to inform. Naturally, a federal district court struck down the NH law because it did not include the compulsory self-eviscerating exception for the health of the so-called mother. NH claims that other state laws currently protect the health of the woman so such a clause is unnecessary. Also, NH is asking for clarification from the overlords on the legal test that will be applied when looking at laws that do not in any way stop a woman from destroying her baby, but merely insert a modicum of accountability here or there.
Such clarification would indeed be a great boon to the people, a kind of judicial revelation that might indicate to us at least the color and style of this hand basket we are riding in to Hell. We could at least accessorize. Unfortunately, no such clarification will be forthcoming There is no rational judicial principle in operation. The usual dignified locutions will be peddled. There will be talk about “balancing tests” that weight “undue burdens” upon the woman against “the State’s interest.” Ultimately, though, there is no principle to be discerned other than the will of the oligarchs.
The NY Times dutifully casts the argument in shades favorable to the liberal agenda they serve, stating that the NH law “required that a parent or guardian be notified if an abortion was to be done on a woman under 18.” A woman under 18? I think the technical term for that is “a child.” Of course, what is a child to the Supreme Court? The most vulnerable are cast aside. No court in the land will hold a minor to a signed contract and you can’t execute them even for the most heinous crimes, yet they enjoy a full right to free speech. Their proclaimed right to an abortion is vigorously protected, but their rights do not limit the rights of virtual child pornographers or repeat sexual predators who otherwise would be locked up under Three Strikes laws. The Court was conceived of as a mechanism to resolve the inevitable conflicts of legislative enactments, not to be the source of such conflicts.
This bizarre situation now clashes with the even more incoherent abortion jurisprudence. The result of this case is irrelevant. There mere fact of it, and the background against which it will be played out, is enough to once again make it clear that something must be fundamentally altered to bring the Court to heel.