Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 546 U.S. 320 (2006)

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 546 U.S. 320 (2006)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 45 |Likes:
Published by Legal Momentum
Legal Momentum filed a brief on behalf of organizations that support women's equality as amici curiae in this critical abortion case before the United States Supreme Court. The case was the State of New Hampshire's challenge to lower court rulings that struck down a state law requiring parental notification before a minor's abortion. The law was invalidated because it made no exception for circumstances when an immediate abortion was needed to protect the minor's health. In its decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the requirement that abortion restrictions not endanger pregnant women's health, but remanded the case to the lower courts to determine whether a remedy less drastic than striking down the entire law would be sufficient to protect minors' rights.



Our brief focused on the importance of legal abortion in allowing women to participate as full and equal citizens in society. We point out that impeding legal access to abortion can actually force a woman to continue a pregnancy that she wants to end, which is an intrusion on her physical integrity that has no parallel for men. What is more, because virtually all women who bear children raise them, interfering with the woman's ability to decide whether to bear a child also imposes the role of mother on the woman, which has significant consequences for both her private life and the nature and extent of her participation in public life. We conclude that for these reasons, restrictions on the ability to exercise choice in childbearing undermine women's equality.
Legal Momentum filed a brief on behalf of organizations that support women's equality as amici curiae in this critical abortion case before the United States Supreme Court. The case was the State of New Hampshire's challenge to lower court rulings that struck down a state law requiring parental notification before a minor's abortion. The law was invalidated because it made no exception for circumstances when an immediate abortion was needed to protect the minor's health. In its decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the requirement that abortion restrictions not endanger pregnant women's health, but remanded the case to the lower courts to determine whether a remedy less drastic than striking down the entire law would be sufficient to protect minors' rights.



Our brief focused on the importance of legal abortion in allowing women to participate as full and equal citizens in society. We point out that impeding legal access to abortion can actually force a woman to continue a pregnancy that she wants to end, which is an intrusion on her physical integrity that has no parallel for men. What is more, because virtually all women who bear children raise them, interfering with the woman's ability to decide whether to bear a child also imposes the role of mother on the woman, which has significant consequences for both her private life and the nature and extent of her participation in public life. We conclude that for these reasons, restrictions on the ability to exercise choice in childbearing undermine women's equality.

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Legal Momentum on Jun 15, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/29/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 No. 04-1144
 In the 
Supreme Court of the United States
¡
 
¡
 
KELLY A. AYOTTE, Attorney General of theState of New Hampshire, in her Official Capacity,
 Petitioner,v.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND,
et al., Respondents.
 ____________________________ 
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THEUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
BRIEF OF ORGANIZATIONS COMMITTEDTO WOMEN’S EQUALITY AS
 AMICI CURIAE 
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS
J
ENNIFER 
K. B
ROWN
 
Counsel of Record 
 G
ILLIAN
L. T
HOMAS
 L
EGAL
M
OMENTUM
 395 Hudson Street New York, New York 10014(212) 925-6635
Counsel for Amici Curiae
October 12, 2005
 
 
Table of ContentsPage
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES............................................iiSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF
 AMICI CURIAE 
.......1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT........................................1ARGUMENT....................................................................2I. Restricting the Right to Choose When andWhether to Have Children Impedes Women’sEquality.................................................................2A. Restricting Choice in ChildbearingRequires Women to Endure the PhysicalConstraints and Risks of Pregnancy.................3B. Restricting Choice in ChildbearingImposes a Stereotypical Role on Women.........5C. Restricting Choice in ChildbearingImpedes Women’s Equal Participationin Civic Life......................................................7II. Analyzing Abortion Restrictions According toOverbreadth Doctrine Rather than the
Salerno
 Standard is Necessary to Protect Women’sEquality as Well as Their Privacy......................14A. Overbreadth Analysis is Necessary toAvoid Chilling the Exercise of the Rightto Choose Abortion.........................................15B. Applying the
Salerno
Standard WouldThreaten Women’s Equality...........................21CONCLUSION...............................................................25
 
ii
 
Table of AuthoritiesCases
 Ada v. Guam Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
, 506 U.S. 1011, 113 S. Ct. 633(1992)....................................................................18, 19
 Bradwell v. Illinois
, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130(1872)............................................................................8
 Broadrick v. Oklahoma
, 413 U.S. 601 (1973)................15
Colautti v. Franklin
, 439 U.S. 379 (1979)......................16
 Doe v. Bolton
, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)...............................23
 Doe v. Maher 
, 515 A.2d 134 (Conn. Super. Ct.1986).............................................................................8
Guam Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. Ada
, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS13490 (9th Cir. 1992).................................................18
 Hoyt v. Florida
, 368 U.S. 57 (1961).................................8
 J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.
, 511 U.S. 127(1994)............................................................................6
 Lawrence v. Texas,
539 U.S. 558 (2003)......................6, 7
 Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan
,458 U.S. 718 (1982).....................................................7
 Muller v. Oregon
, 208 U.S. 412 (1908)............................8
 Nevada Dep’t of Human Res. v. Hibbs
,538 U.S. 721 (2003)...................................................10

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->