Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket
More info:
Source
Her husband's permission?!
 |
I've looked into this a bit.
Actually, what his opinion was was that there was no constitutional prohibition to a law that required such. I beleive the way the article was written was done in such a way as to make it sound as if he supported such a law. His opinion says nothing about whether he thinks it is a good idea or not. He ruled on the constitutionality of the law, which is what I suppose he is supposed to do.
Here is the opinion in question:
http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1764#comment-62642
It is extraordinarily lengthy.
I am wondering if anyone knows what the case was all about.
The spousal notification provision at issue did not give the husband a veto power. Rather, a married woman simply had to certify (through her own uncorroborated and unnotarized statement) either that she had notified her husband, or that her case fell within any one of several statutory exceptions (like can't find the hubby, he might beat her up, etc.).
The key quote from his decision, I beleive, is the following -
"Whether the legislature’s approach represents sound public policy is not a question for us to decide. Our task here is simply to decide whether Section 3209 meets constitutional standards."
So, this is far from how it is being portrayed by some. In no way did Alito support a law requiring a woman to to get a husbands permission for an abortion. It is notification and notification only. Reading his opinion (while long and tedious, most certainly), I saw nothing even close to unreasoned or inflamatory.