Chipping Away At Roe v. Wade

The Nation: Decision On Partial-Birth Abortions A Gateway Ruling

(The Nation)  This column was written by Karen Houppert.

---

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that a nationwide ban on so-called "partial birth" abortions was legal. Significantly, this is the first time the Court has intervened to this extent on the medical procedures used in abortion — as opposed to issues of public funding and parental notification, which had littered its docket in the past. The decision has been a major blow to abortion rights activists, who, although they are not surprised by the decision given the conservative majority on the bench today, remain dismayed by the implications.

"This is an invitation for states to pass further restrictions on abortion," National Abortion Federation president and CEO Vicki Saporta told The Nation. "Most troubling, it undermines the core principles of Roe v. Wade by not putting women's health first."

The Supreme Court decision upholds the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed in 2003 and makes it criminal for physicians to perform abortions using "dilation and extraction," a procedure that is used for late-term abortions. The law makes exceptions for the life, but not the health, of the mother. "If there are any medical uncertainties, this law gives the benefit of the doubt to politicians, not physicians," says Saporta. "And that's plainly and simply not good for women's health."

The Court struck down a similar state ban on "partial birth" abortions in 2000 — but with a different Court makeup. In today's case, three appellate courts had ruled that the law was unconstitutional before it came to the Supreme Court, with the U.S. District Court of Northern California insisting that the law made criminals of physicians "during virtually all abortions performed after the first trimester."

In fact, 85 percent to 90 percent of the roughly 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States occur in the first trimester. But the remaining 10 percent have been increasingly difficult for women to procure, as fewer physicians are trained in the late-term procedures and fewer hospitals and clinics are willing to provide them. This new ban is expected to hit older women and teens hardest: older women because they don't get amniocentesis results until later in their pregnancies, and teens because they are notoriously reluctant to tell their parents they're pregnant until it is nearly obvious.

As predicted, the President's appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts has helped advance the "pro-life" agenda despite the fancy footwork Roberts displayed during confirmation hearings in September 2005, when he assured senators that he respected Court precedent, was "not an ideologue" and — to the dismay of some conservatives — indicated that he "respected the right to privacy" (key words in the abortion battle).

Conservatives need not have worried their purty little heads: This decision, in which newcomers Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joined the majority, ignores 30 years of precedent, marches lockstep with a pro-life plan to chip away at women's reproductive rights and throws privacy rights out the window.

A decade ago, when pro-lifers were making their first forays into this territory — naming the procedure "partial birth" abortion and introducing the idea in a few conservative states — they argued that those pregnant, promiscuous teens who couldn't fit into prom dresses would simply slip out and get this type of late-term abortion. In graphic detail, pro-life activists explained how a fetus has its skull crushed to fit through the birth canal in this particular procedure and provided gory photos to hammer home their point.

Today, they've refined their methods a bit and tend, when arguing, to remind opponents that there are still alternative methods for late-term abortions. That's when they invoke language like "dismembering the baby piece by piece within the mother's womb" — a worrisome description that seems to be laying the groundwork for their next area of attack.

All of this is going exactly according to the Pro-Life Master Plan: Standing no chance of an outright ban on abortion, pro-lifers aim to strip women's reproductive rights one "ban" at a time. Americans United for Life, one of the oldest pro-life groups in the country, puts it quite clearly in its mission statement: "If we are to prevail in our secular culture, we must reach out to address the practical concerns of ambivalent Americans. We must address our culture as it is and not as we would like it to be. With a steady eye toward the mark and the support of people of and for life, we are confident that a renewed culture of life is within our reach."

Today, the organization is doubtless preparing to anoint as saints Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

[sonclad]

I also hope they totally outlaw abortion. No one should have the right to murder an innocent child for any reason. "Control over their bodies" does not include killing a baby. It's a sick, deranged society that does so in the name of liberty.

[opfor311]

oleander8:

When did life of the mother equal health of the mother? My statement, that you quoted, was pointing out that there WAS an exception for the mother's life, and that there was not a health exception. Was I wrong to say what you then stated?

And yes, the D&E that you refer to is but one of the other methods. Inducing labor and saline injections are others as well.

[sparks224]

I hope they do outlaw abortion. Women have too much control over their bodies. It%u2019s like their equal with men. It makes me feel scared.

[sparks224]

The Neocons were starting to lose some of their social conservative base. So it was time for the Neocon hacks on the Supreme Court to throw them some red meat.

I wonder how far they%u2019ll go with this.

Of course if they actually do outlaw abortion, all those Libertarian women who vote Republican will bolt from the Party.

[rhs648]

For over 30 years the Supreme Court has declared the issue of abortion off-limits to state and federal legislators. Whereas legislators can pass thousands of laws that pertain to guns, cigarettes, and alcohol, they have not been allowed to tamper with abortion. Abortion is no longer the holy grail. Perhaps we will begin to see some balance now. If legislators can make laws that affect our daily lives, why must abortion be off-limits?

[oleander8]

"And this one can still be performed in cases where the mother's life depends on it." [Posted by Opfor311]

Wrong. The justices made no allowances for the health of the woman needing the procedure.

Other methods? You mean when they cut up the fetus inside the woman and then extract all the little pieces?

[sonclad]

Actually, it is not about one's opinion of who's in the White House, but about the moral soul of America. This ruling highlights a society-wide struggle between those who desire to see America return to a foundational set of moral values (as reflected by a descent man who's currently in the White House) and those who view such morals as inhibitions (as reflected by his predecessor, who's only remorse was that he was caught being immoral). This is indeed about the morality of killing innocent children - infantcide. The question to ask yourself is: "is it wrong to torture helpless babies?" Absolute morals exist.

[comfortmd1]

What the root problem here that so many are arguing about is not about one simple abortion procedure. It is about whether or not we will allow ourselves to be controlled by a tyrant. A tyrant is one who, regardless of the situation, forces others to do his/her will. We have been enduring a tyrant for a while now. And people are beginning to take notice. At every level of our government we have had partisan workers placed like a spreading disease.
What do we find so reprehensible about Venezuela in how that rat Chavez has been stationing his own people at every level of government? Bush has been doing that since he got elected. We no longer have an impartial judiciary. Our congress has been hamstrung into not being able to legislate. Our EPA has been subverted into protecting big business. Even the Red Cross now has a Bush underling.
What kind of damage can the neocons do with the power of the United States for a generation? First will be a solidifying of their power. That will take the form of continued personnel adjustments as people are cycled for their loyalty. Then the propaganda machine will move into high gear, convincing many of the smartest of our generation to believe what Bush wants.
How many of these things have already come to pass. You cannot destroy an idea without action. Will we either be remembered as the people that allowed a tyrant to come into power, or as people that resisted to their last breath?
I hope the future remembers us fondly.

[opfor311]

Late term abortion is RARE - it is usually done because a woman will not survive if she continues with a pregnancy, or the fetus is so damaged there is no reasonable expectation for it to have any quality of life - for the court to make no provision for conditions such as these is irresponsible.
Posted by oleander8

But they have. Only the one form of late term abortion is covered, other methods can still be performed. And this one can still be performed in cases where the mother's life depends on it.

The problem for pro-choice advocates is that the "dilation and extraction" procedure is never need to protect the life of the mother. The other methods work equally as well or better in the cases where late term abortions are sought.

[sonclad]

Allowing the procedure = 100% mortality rate of a human being; Making it illegal POSSIBLY endangers one human being but that is not certain. If the procedure is so rare, the implication is that such endangerment is as rare or rarer.

[oleander8]

[If it's indeed so rare a procedure, then why all the fuss about this ruling "chipping away" at so-called "rights" of women? Posted by Sonclad]

Because the procedure itself has become illegal - without any consideration of the life or health of the woman who needs it. Politician should not be making medical decisions.

[sonclad]

If it's indeed so rare a procedure, then why all the fuss about this ruling "chipping away" at so-called "rights" of women? Women have NEVER had the moral right to murder, regardless of a "poor quality of life" death sentence given to the victim.

[gmcnally2]

Lantz56-
Excellent post. And as an answer, I am a person now. Pretty sure I was never anything else, no matter what stage of my development.

[oleander8]

Late term abortion is RARE - it is usually done because a woman will not survive if she continues with a pregnancy, or the fetus is so damaged there is no reasonable expectation for it to have any quality of life - for the court to make no provision for conditions such as these is irresponsible.

[crusadex]

Disagree,fine.CBS please ask your writers to refrain from mocking their opponents.It is bad journalism.

[sonclad]

Partial birth "abortion" is nothing less than infantcide of the most gruesome sort. There is no doubt that what is being killed is a human being. This is not about losing women's so-called "rights", but preserving the rights of future women (and men). This decision may not save many babies, but it's a step in the right direction. No one has a "right" to methodically torture and murder future generations, stripping them of their Constitutional right to life. I'd venture to bet that the innocent babies being murdered would gladly exchange places with the lunatic Lefties rallying for support of this infantcide, just for a chance to live.

[lantz56]

Late term abortions are obviously the termination of a human life to anyone who sees the process; the doctor, the mother, for example. The process itself removes the brain from the skull... last time I checked brains and skulls were human parts.

Unless one is in full spin mode, or frank denial of the facts, no way can this be covered up by calling 'it' a fetus.

There are two lives in play in such a situation, not sure how one can defend giving the mother's rights more precedence over the childs...

Often a truth can be found philosophically taking the process to its absurd ends... Late term abortion is one such absurd end...it is obvious what is wrong with that situation.

Abortion rights proponents are correct in realizing that this does give rise to the natural question (one that has always been there) ... just when is that fetus a person... I don't think that even such proponents would want to push in the other direction and say, well maybe anytime in first week after birth it would be ok to abort..

Or, being the parent of teenagers, maybe that's the time to call it off..

Ridiculous obviously. So, yes, pushing back the issue of humanity into the late term would be a scary trend to those that would only consider the concerns of the mother in such a situation...but it only underscores the primary question that Roe v Wade did not address head on...

Is that thing a person or not?