This time as regards parental consent laws and whether or not they must have a "health" exception:

The new case is an appeal by the state of New Hampshire of a federal appeals court ruling that struck down a parental-notification requirement for minors seeking abortions.

...it presents two questions that the court has not previously addressed in the context of parental-notice laws. One is whether such laws must explicitly provide an exception for minors whose continued pregnancy is a threat to their health. The other is what standard courts should use in evaluating a judicial challenge to abortion laws that like the New Hampshire law, enacted in 2003, have yet to take effect.

The issues supposedly at stake here have nothing to do with why the case was filed; what is at stake here is the ability of the abortion industry to perform profitable abortions on children without their parent's consent. You see, "health" is a nicely ill-defined word which would de-facto legalise all abortions for all minors regardless of their parents knowledge or wishes, and that is what the abortion industry wants. After all, money is at stake here and we can't have pettifogging worries about the rights of parents get in the way of a good quarterly profit.

I wish I could say that the Supreme Court would rule that the case is a disgusting attempt by pro-abortion fanatics to usurp the rights of parents to raise their own children...but you just can't tell these days how the courts will rule. Much better, in the end, if we get more conservative justices...and even better than that would be leglistative action to curtail the ability of the courts to enter into areas (such as parents raising their children) in which the courts have no proper place.