Would love to hear from Libertarian-types on how it would be okay to have a law requiring women to inform their husbands before they get an abortion.

Although a state-created obstacle need not be absolute to be impermissible, see Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973); Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), we have held that a requirement for a lawful abortion "is not unconstitutional unless it unduly burdens the right to seek an abortion.

As the court suggests, the crux of this case concerns the identification of the constitutional standard that the lower courts must now apply in cases involving laws regulating abortion. ... the test set out in Justice O’Connor’s opinions now represents the governing legal standard.
[...]
Taken together, Justice O’Connor’s opinions reveal that an undue burden does not exist unless a law (a) prohibits abortion or gives another person the authority to veto an abortion or (b) has the practical effect of imposing “severe limitations,” rather than simply inhibiting abortions ”‘to some degree’” or inhibiting “some women.”

In this case, the plaintiffs, who made a facial attack [FN1] on Section 3209, did not prove that this provision would impose an undue burden. Section 3209 does not create an “absolute obstacle” or give a husband “veto power.” Rather, this provision merely requires a married woman desiring an abortion to certify that she has notified her husband or to claim one of the statutory exceptions.

At the outset, it is apparent that two factors imposed a low ceiling on any showing that the plaintiffs could have made. First, as the district court found, the “vast majority” of married women voluntarily inform their husbands before seeking an abortion. Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 744 F.Supp. 1323, 1360 (E.D.Pa.1990). Indeed, in the trial testimony on which the district court relied, the plaintiffs’ witness stated that in her experience 95% of married women notify their husbands. App. at 701. Second, the overwhelming majority of abortions are sought by unmarried women. [FN3] Thus, it is immediately apparent that Section 3209 cannot affect more than about 5% of married women seeking abortions or an even smaller percentage of all women desiring abortions.
[...]
The plaintiffs failed to show even roughly how many of the women in this small group would actually be adversely affected by Section 3209.

• Atrios: "All Your Uterus Are Belong To Your Husband";


• TAPPED: "what Alito's appointment is really about—returning power to men to decide whether or not women must bear their children, and giving the state the power and authority to intervene on men's behalf in the most personal decisions of married couples and grown women"

Section 3209 contains four significant exceptions. These exceptions apply if a woman certifies that she has not notified her husband because she believes [FN4] that
(1) he is not the father of the child,
(2) he cannot be found after diligent effort,
(3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or
(4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her.

Clarence Thomas to be joined by man after his own heart.

In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

First, there is no doubt that the search warrant application sought permission to search all occupants of the premises. Indeed, the application made this request in three separate paragraphs.

I share the Majority's visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe's young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealer's sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from search a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is no illegal on its face.