Back in 2001, the state of Oregon enacted, by voter referendum, a law permitting physician-assisted suicide. New Attorney General John Ashcroft, an Evangelical Protestant, didn't much like the idea of assisted suicide, so he tried to illegalize Oregon's referendum, but since he didn't have a legal leg to stand on, it didn't work.

Ashcroft's next trick was to sanction physicians who used federally controlled drugs to induce death in patients who wanted to die. This was the subject of Ashcroft v. Oregon, which later became Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Tuesday that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 could not be used to punish doctors who prescribed federally controlled drugs in order to euthanize patients who wanted to die. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented. This is a victory for the "right to die" crowd, who gained steam after the Terri Schiavo fiasco of last March. The "any life is a good life" motto of the Religious Right doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion anymore. And that's good, unless you're John Ashcroft.

Today, the court released its opinion in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England, 04-1144. You'll recall that I wrote about this case in May, when the court granted certiorari.

Ayotte is about the legality of parental consent laws. Under a New Hampshire statute enacted in 2003, any unemancipated minor wanting to have an abortion performed was required to notify her parents at least 48 hours in advance of having the procedure. One of the things that I said would irk the justices was that the New Hampshire statute made no provision for saving the life of the mother. The Supreme Court mandated in 2000 that any abortion regulations had to make an exception for saving the life of the mother. As it turns out, I was right.

The Supreme Court made three conclusions in its opinion today:

1. Parental notification laws are, generally speaking, constitutional. States have the right to require minors to notify their parents prior to a non-emergency abortion. Justice O'Connor, writing for the unanimous court, noted, "States unquestionably have the right to require parental involvement when a minor considers terminating her pregnancy, because of their 'strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of [their] young citizens, whose immaturity, inexperience, and lack of judgment may sometimes impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely.'"
2. States cannot restrict access to abortions in the event of an emergency where an abortion may be required to save the mother's life.
3. In this specific instance, New Hampshire's statute is unconstitutional in as far as it makes no explicit exception for allowing an abortion to save the mother's life.

The court's ultimate ruling was that it vacated the First Circuit Court's decision -- that the law was unconstitutional -- and remanded the case to the First Circuit with the stipulation that the whole law doesn't have to go, just the parts that leave out access to emergency abortions. Justice O'Connor wrote that, while the lower courts chose "the most blunt remedy" of invalidating the entire statute, the Supreme Court would rather have lower courts issue injunctive relief than "have invalidated the law wholesale."

This brings up a curious question, however. Why did New Hampshire leave out such an obvious part of its statute? New Hampshire maintained that a variety of state and local laws would protect physicians from prosecution if they performed emergency abortions without notification, but the justices were still concerned that the statute lacked an explicit exemption. Would it have been so hard for the New Hampshire legislature to insert an exemption into the statute?

The Supreme Court vacated the First Circuit decision and sent this back for more review. What was the "legislative intent" of the New Hampshire law? Why was there no exemption? Did the New Hampshire legislature intend for there to be an exemption? Did the statute even allow for injunctive relief? These are questions that will be answered ... well, eventually.