Planned Parrenthood Vs Parental Rights in New Hampshire

I am addressing a lawsuit involving the ACLU and Planned Parenthood against the state of New Hampshire that is anti family as well as anti life though I only address the earlier.

I admire the United States Declaration of Independence and hold the values summed up therein to be very important but know that many in the state and federal government do not share my esteem for the founding document of our once free country.

The Statement “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America” makes the Declaration a legal document binding on all thirteen states whose ideals have ever been retracted by the governments of the United States. In the United States Constitution acknowledgement of its legal status is given by admitting that it and not the treaty with Great Britain granted independence to the United States by numbering the Independence of the United States from its signing.

The phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” establishes the philosophy of natural law as legal fact within the boundaries of the United States. This ideal was so important that the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution protects “rights retained by the people” from being denied or disparaged because they are not mentioned in the Constitution.

The axiom “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” Mentions three rights that the United States is to regard as fact but implies the existence of others. One of the sources of information about natural law is John Locke’s "The Second Treatise of Civil Government".

In his chapter by the title of "Paternal Power" John Locke defines the natural law of parenthood with the following words.

Sec. 58. The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to

And

But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a freeman, the son is a freeman too.

He is not stating that parents have absolute authority over their child for earlier in his chapter entitled Of The State Of Nature he declared that liberty did not justify license as the following cite demonstrates.

… yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it.

Ayotte v.Planned Parenthood of Northern New England is a case before the Supreme Court after lesser courts have made the following decisions.

Reviewing the Act, the district court adopted the standard of review from Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. V. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart, which provides that laws may not impose an undue burden on the right to choose abortion, and ruled that the Act violates the Constitution. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, rejecting the argument of the New Hampshire Attorney General that the plaintiffs were required to show that under “no set of circumstances” is the Act valid. Applying the “undue burden” standard, the First Circuit held that the act violates the Constitution because of the narrowness of the death exception and because the Act lacks an exception that would protect the health of a pregnant minor. The court rejected the argument that the judicial bypass mechanism could be used to preserve the health and life of a minor, stating that the procedure, which might take as long as two weeks, allows the health or life of the minor to be jeopardized for too long a time.

I previously laid out proof of the right of parenthood and proved it is an established legal right of our country. The right of parenthood overrides the right of privacy of a minor as the minors liberty is subject to the parents will, which renders the undue burden ruling irrelevant. Knowing this the New Hampshire law is in fact Constitutional as according to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution the only way the parental right can be taken from someone is the due process of law.

The law of most or all states has means to legally handle suspected child abuse. The first is to call the state Child Protective Service and report the suspected crime. CPS in their police roll then has the authority to take custody of the child and have their own doctor check her out for evidence of abuse or if her life is threatened by the baby she is carrying. Once they have that evidence in hand they can order an abortion if they determine that is the best interest of the child and the parents have abused their parental rights. Like the police the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution limits CPS by the need to obtain a warrant from a judge to accomplish all of this.