Here's a sampling of reactions from conservative groups following the Supreme Court's unanimous decision today that an appellate court should not have struck down New Hampshire's parental notification law.
Although the decision pleased pro-life groups, it was also disappointing because the court returned to the case to a lower court.
Family Research Council's Tony Perkins:
"This is a great victory for the future of parental notification laws. This ruling is encouraging and gives great momentum to other states looking to protect parental rights and safeguard the health of underage girls. It should also impart fresh momentum to passage of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which Planned Parenthood and its allies have so far blocked in Congress."
American Life League's Jim Sedlak:
"Planned Parenthood's attempt to usurp parental authority and endanger children's lives was defeated, which is always good. However, the court did not uphold the law in its entirety and therefore residents of New Hampshire are still in danger of having that law, or parts of the law, once again overturned by the lower court. Basically, the Supreme Court only took care of half of the problem."
Liberty Counsel's Mathew D. Staver:
"Although the Court's ruling appears to be subtle, the implications of the case mean that it will be far more difficult for courts to strike down abortion legislation in its entirety when a narrow ruling is permissible. Courts have frustrated legislators by striking down abortion laws when only a narrow portion of the law could have been striken. Although the time will come when the High Court will revisit its abortion precedents, the Court's decision is a major victory for future abortion legislation. Untold numbers of babies have lost their lives as a result of courts broadly striking down laws based upon rare applications to unusual circumstances. In the future, most of these laws will be allowed to operate to protect life in 99% of the cases, while the 1% of questionable applications will be stricken. I believe this case lays the foundation to chip away at Roe v. Wade."
Family Research Council's Cathy Cleaver Ruse:
"New Hampshire openly agreed that its notification requirement prior to an abortion could not be constitutionally applied in cases where a minor faces a health emergency. In such cases the law permits a judicial bypass that allows the teen to seek permission from a judge."
