In returning New Hampshire's parental notification case to a lower appellate court, the U.S. Supreme Court zeroed in on the question of legislative intent. Now the lower court must determine what state lawmakers meant when they passed the law in 2003.

Among the questions that a court must decide: Because the law lacks a health exception, must the court strike it down? Or can the court split the law, approving one part while rejecting another?

Lawmakers who supported the legislation said yesterday that there were several reasons why a health exception was not included. Some thought an exception would be abused, and doctors would allow minors without serious medical conditions to get abortions without first telling their parents. Others believed the state already had laws in place that would protect the health of a minor in an emergency.

Even so, many who voted for the law said they would prefer having part of the law in place rather than none of it. Many said they would tolerate a health exception that is not overly broad.

The issue of legislative intent could be tricky for the courts, because lawmakers don't seem to agree on the definition.

"Even though you can get a majority to pass something, I think everyone has a little bit of a different idea as to what intent is," said Sen. Tom Eaton, a Keene Republican who presided over the state Senate debates on the law.

Phyllis Woods, a former state representative who sponsored the parental notification bill, said she did not like the health exceptions other states had included in parental notification laws. She said it would negate the measure, in many cases.

"It was in my strong feeling that we did not need this," she said. "And if we had it, it would seriously weaken and . . . just totally disempower the law from doing what we want it to do."

Other lawmakers agreed.

"I'm very suspicious of the health exception because it presents a glaring loophole," said Rep. Robert Giuda, a Warren Republican. "It's just so vague . . . what is the health exception? Show me that situation that produces that."

"Who can second-guess a doctor?" said Rep. Greg Sorg, an Easton Republican. "It's just going to be used so broadly the law would become useless."

But Republican Sen. Bob Clegg said it was not the intention of the Legislature to leave out exemptions for any medical situation. Some lawmakers believed, as Kelly Ayotte argued at the Supreme Court, that New Hampshire's laws were sufficient to cover rare emergency medical situations.

"It was not our intention not to accept medical reasons," he said. "That's been the issue from day one. We pointed out that it's already covered."

Eaton, who as Senate president did not vote on the measure, said he recalls the Senate decided that health exceptions were covered by other laws and need not be included in the parental notification law.

"I believe that that was the intent put into the record," he said.

Single page