Supreme Court Unexpectedly Agrees to Hear Notification Case.

WASHINGTON (May 23)-- With a simple one-line order, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, a challenge to New Hampshire's 2003 parental notification law. The justices will hear oral arguments next term, which begins in October.

Depending on whom you read, the first abortion case heard by the High Court in five years is either much ado about nothing or potentially a case in which the justices can evaluate several important issues.

That law survived a Perils of Pauline-like plot to narrowly win passage in 2003. Under the statute, abortionists may not perform an abortion on a minor until "at least 48 hours after written notice of the pending abortion" has been delivered to one of her parents.

The law makes an exception when the minor's life is in imminent danger and provides a judicial bypass by which minors can avoid telling their parents by going to a judge.

The measure never went into effect. The law was ruled to be unconstitutional by a federal judge in Concord and by the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston last November. Both cited what they said was the absence of an explicit exception to protect the mother's health.

The law was closely modeled on the Minnesota law that was upheld by the Supreme Court in Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990). The Court's decision puzzled proponents on both sides of the issue, since the justices have not seemed to be overly eager to enter the abortion fray unless absolutely required.

Proponents of an explicit health exception make two interrelated arguments. First, they cite the Supreme Court's 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision. They argue that Casey requires a health exception.