|
Gonna be some fireworks on this issue, not necessarily from this case but from the cases brought on by pro-lifers that will definitely soon follow. Evidence of this? Here's an opinion from Prof. Hadley Arkes, one of the leading voices and architects from the pro-life movement making a prediction back in October of 2006:
| quote: | [I]f Roberts and Alito help simply to overturn that prior decision on partial-birth abortion, my own judgment is that the regime of Roe will have come to its end, even if Roe itself is not explicitly overruled. What the Court would be saying in effect is, "We are now in business to consider seriously, and to sustain, many plausible measures that impose real restrictions on abortion."
That would invite a flood of measures enacted by the states. They might be restrictions on abortion after the point of viability, for instance, or even earlier, with the first evidence of a beating heart. Or requirements that abortionists use a method more likely to yield the child alive. Or provisions that ban abortions on a child likely to be afflicted with disabilities, such as Down syndrome.
Each restriction would command the support of about 70 or 80 percent of the country, including many people who describe themselves as pro-choice. And step by step, the public would get used to these cardinal notions: that the freedom to order abortions, like any other kind of freedom, may be subject to plausible restrictions; that it is legitimate for legislatures to enact those restrictions; and that it is, in fact, possible for ordinary folk, with ordinary language, to deliberate about the grounds on which abortions could be said to be justified or unjustified.
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5360 |
Sorry to say, this issue isn't one of the hot buttons for me. I know there's a great deal of strong feelings from both camps, but I still maintain a bit of a fence-sitting view on it. But I think a conversation involving the merits of this decision would be good. Was the majority opinion a good one based on the merits? I'll report some of the opinions on the librul blogs that tended to disagree (to put it nicely):
First, from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg:
| quote: | Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, speaking out in the courtroom for the dissenters, called the ruling “an alarming decision” that refuses “to take seriously” the Court’s 1992 decisions reaffirming most of Roe v. Wade and its 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart striking down a state partial-birth abortion law.
Ginsburg, in a lengthy statement, said “the Court’s opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman’s health.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/movablety..._rules_att.html |
Here's a quote from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which arguably is the nation's leading group of healthcare professionals for women:
| quote: | The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women’s health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation’s leading medical schools.
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publi.../nr09-22-06.cfm |
You can read more over at scotusblog for some interesting opinions on the decision here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/movablety..._rules_att.html
And BTW, this decision overturned a 2000 SCOTUS decision Stenberg vs. Carhart, a 5-4 decision, which said such a ban on this procedure was unconstitutional:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZS.html
Personally based on the merits, I thought this would have likely been overturned because the ban has no protections for the woman. But it seems that Stevens believed there were other options for an abortion, which are indeed true. However, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists seemed to believe otherwise, and I tend to trust their rationale based both on their knowledge, experience, and peer-reviewed process a bit more than I would a judge. Nevertheless, SCOTUS thought otherwise.
Remember one thing - if you disagree with this decision, tough shit. That's what happens when you vote (or don't even bother voting) for someone who believes differently than you do and will nominate judges that have those same differing beliefs as they do.
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
Supreme Court bans "partial-birth" abortions
