High Court Hears Abortion Case

Does Not Challenge Roe V. Wade, But Still Considered Significant

(CBS/AP)  The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with how to handle a New Hampshire law that requires a parent be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy, an emotional showdown in the court's first abortion rights case in five years.

New Chief Justice John Roberts seemed sympathetic to the state, but other justices said they were troubled that the law does not make an exception for minors who have a medical emergency.

At the same time, the court did not appear satisfied with an appeals court ruling that struck down the law, one of dozens around the country that require parental involvement when a teen seeks an abortion.

Although the case does not challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that said abortion is a fundamental constitutional right, the stakes are still significant and could signal where the high court is headed under Roberts and after the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

"The case doesn't go to the core of Roe v. Wade; it doesn't ask or require the justices to determine whether the right to an abortion still is a constitutional right," said CBSNews.com legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "It forces the court instead to look again at limits and restrictions and conditions upon that right."

Abortion was a prominent subject in Roberts' confirmation hearings and has emerged as a major issue in President Bush's nomination of appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to replace O'Connor, who has been the swing vote in support of abortion rights.

"Court dynamics are also in play," reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews. "The case gets argued in front of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, one of the architects of the woman's health exception. All sides will be keenly watching to see if O'Connor helps decide this case before the Senate decides if Judge Samuel Alito replaces her."

As protesters demonstrated outside, the argument inside the court was at times contentious, with justices talking over each other and over the lawyers.

New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte struggled to field sharp questions on why the state made an exception to allow abortions when a mother's life — but not her health — is in danger.

The court has said before that abortion restrictions should include a health exception.

But Andrews reports the New Hampshire legislature passed this law without the women's health exception completely on purpose, with many lawmakers arguing at the time that the exception for a woman's health had come to mean almost any medical issue.