New Hampshire passed a parental-notification law in 2003. A federal appeals court struck down that law because it doesn't provide an exception for pregnant teenagers whose health is in danger (the law did offer exceptions when the young woman's life is threatened): According to the New York Times, the court ruled "that even if most pregnant teenagers do not have health problems requiring a termination of pregnancy, the law's requirements, which include a 48-hour waiting period after parental notice, pose an undue burden on a large fraction of those who suffer from such conditions as eclampsia or premature membrane rupture. Consequently, the law was unconstitutional, the appeals court ruled."
The state of New Hampshire has appealed to the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case. NH "is arguing that a teenager with a health problem can go before a judge, who can take health into account even though the statute itself does not mention it. The First Circuit found this argument inadequate, noting that the judicial process, even expedited as the statute requires, can take up to two weeks."
Two weeks? Hmm, yeah, that's too long. I say this as a woman who had preeclampsia when pregnant. Those folks who say pregnancy is a natural process that shouldn't be medicalized are clearly not the ones who had medically complicated pregnancies. Without a team of medical specialists dedicated to keeping me and my pregnancy going, presumably my pregnancy would have eventually been fatal. From this very personal perspective, I oppose any burdens put on a pregnant woman (adult or teen) that require her to continue pregnancy, because sometimes—not always, but definitely sometimes—pregnancy poses a serious risk. It is just plain wrong to require a woman to take on that risk if she is unwilling to do so.