New Hampshire will move to the center of the hotly contested battle over access to abortions this fall when the Supreme Court will hear Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood to determine whether or not the state's parental notification law is constitutional.

The law, signed by former governor Craig Benson in 2003, requires minors seeking an abortion to notify parents of their decision. However, doctors could ignore the law if the pregnancy was a threat to the girl's life. Teens seeking an abortion could also obtain a judicial waiver to bypass the required notification.

The law was challenged and overturned by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, with judges ruling that the exception to the law was too narrowly defined and did not account for an immediate medical emergency.

Foes and proponents of the law are watching the case closely for many reasons. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist may step down from the bench soon and could potentially be replaced by a more conservative justice, pushing the court further to the right. If the court does find the law constitutional, the ruling could set a precedent that would limit access to abortions.

Any decision the court makes could be "quite huge" on both the state and national level, according to Liza Dube, political director for NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire.

"One of the things we're most concerned about is that New Hampshire is a pro-choice state ... and the parental notification law is the only abortion restriction passed in New Hampshire since Roe v. Wade," she said. "We've had only one loss, and that one loss seems to have gone all the way to the Supreme Court."

Dube said her group and other pro-choice advocates are hoping the court will solidify requirements for health exceptions in abortion laws.

"Past Supreme Court decisions make it clear health exceptions are a necessary part of the law. What this case will hopefully do is ensure this health exception is not implied (by other laws)," she said.

The judicial bypass option built into the law does not provide girls with enough options, according to Dube. "The judicial bypass is nice in theory, but isn't something that's helpful to a young woman who's already trying to navigate a complicated medical system," she said.

Rep. Kathleen Souza (R-Manchester) was one of the bill's original co-sponsors. She said supporters are "very hopeful" that the court will rule in favor of the law.

"This will go a long ways toward protecting the girl and maybe protecting human life, because parents by and large are willing to help out if there's a child or grandchild involved," she said.

Souza said that the law is not preventing or limiting access to abortions.

"This is not a consent law, so (the girl) is not being prohibited from doing anything and therefore, this health clause should not even be material," she said.

Though the Court announced it would hear the case in the fall, Dube doesn't expect the court to rule until sometime in 2006.

The announcement came just days before New Hampshire legislators gave their approval to SB 30, the Collaborative Practice for Emergency Contraception Act. Under the bill sponsored by Sen. Lou D'Allesandro (D-Manchester), pharmacists can dispense emergency contraception drugs, known as the "morning after pill," from behind the counter. The pill, a concentrated dose of regular birth control pills, was previously available only by prescription. New Hampshire is the seventh state to pass such a measure. Legislators passed the bill in 2004, but Benson vetoed it.