Justices will review a lower court ruling that struck down such a law in New Hampshire. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the 2003 law was unconstitutional because it didn't provide an exception to protect the minor's health in the event of a medical emergency.

The decision to review the emotional case, which also comes at a time of bitterly partisan fighting in the Senate over President Bush's nominees for federal judgeships, will be heard in the next term beginning in October. Liberal groups have vowed to fight any Rehnquist replacement who opposes the high court's landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion.

"Boy, it does make for an interesting summer - potential chief justice retirement, the filibuster fight and the Supreme Court delving into the abortion issue once again," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice.

Wow, Jay, that certainly is the understatement of the year! And the events of this summer weigh heavily on whether common sense will prevail or whether we'll invent some new right for a minor to have an abortion without parental consent.

Of course where there's a child getting an abortion, you know there has to be an ACLU attorney skulking about and this New Hampshire case is no exception:

Jennifer Dalven, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer handling the case, said: "We are welcoming the opportunity to put to rest any lingering questions about whether a woman's right to an abortion is entitled to full constitutional protection."

Hate to break it to you Jennifer, but we're not EVEN talking about "a woman's right to an abortion" however despicable that phrase is: We're talking about the right of a minor child to have a serious medical procedure that could result in physical and mental complications up to and including death, without the consent of their parents. And since the ALCU and "Planned Parenthood" have teamed up in a number of states to fight for the right of a 13-year-old to have an abortion and have demonstrated that they don't care WHAT 13-year-old or who impregnated that child as long as they make a buck, the outcome of this upcoming Supreme Court Case couldn't be more crucial. Will the Supreme Court strike a blow against parental rights on the vulgar assumption that either all fathers are rapists or all parents are fiends who will beat their young daughter at the revelation that she is with child? Or will they make the right choice and decide that parents have a right to participate and counsel their child through this difficult process? Given the current make-up of the court and the uncertainty of its make-up in the future, I'd say that this question is entirely up in the air.

Source: Kansas City Star/AP