Maine Civil Liberties Union Warns that Law in Front of Supreme Court Puts Women’s Health and Safety at Risk

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                    Contact: Shenna Bellows
Tuesday, November 29, 2005                                      774-5444; sbellows@mclu.org

Portland- This year the Maine Civil Liberties Union helped successfully oppose a bill that would have bypassed the requirement that abortion laws must include protections for women’s health.  Tomorrow, the United States Supreme Court will begin considering a case that could effectively eliminate those same considerations for women’s health and safety in abortion law nationwide. 

“In order to protect women from serious medical harm, doctors, not judges, should make decisions about medical treatment for their patients,” said Maine Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Shenna Bellows.  “The government has urged the Supreme Court to take the dangerous step of forbidding doctors from putting their patient’s health first— when that patient is a woman seeking an abortion.”
The case, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, involves a New Hampshire law that prevents doctors from performing an abortion for a young woman under the age of 18 until 48 hours after a parent has been notified, even if such a delay would seriously endanger the health of the young woman.  New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte joins the Bush Administration in arguing that the New Hampshire law is constitutional even though, contrary to Supreme Court precedent, it does not include a health exception.
"For years, courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have consistently held that abortion restrictions must include exceptions to protect women who need emergency medical care,” said Jennifer Dalven, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing the challengers of the New Hampshire law in front of the High Court.  “A decision in this case could unravel that protection, endangering women who need abortions to safeguard their health."
A decision in Ayotte could reach far beyond teenagers in New Hampshire. In accepting the case, the Court agreed to consider two questions.  First, must abortion restrictions include exceptions to protect women's health? And second, what legal standard must courts apply when evaluating the constitutionality of abortion laws?  The conclusions drawn in considering these questions could potentially effect the outcome of future abortion law cases in Maine and across the country, even going so far as to restrict abortion rights in cases of medical emergency.
“The government’s arguments in this case are another attempt to chip away at the Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal,” said Bellows.  “The new proposal is a political move that could hurt many women, including women in Maine.”
###