A NEW ERA FOR SUPREME COURT ABORTION DECISIONS?
Wednesday's decision by the Supreme Court upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 marked the first time that a majority of justices have agreed that a specific abortion procedure could be prohibited. It was also the first time since the original Roe v. Wade decision that the Court said it was permissable to restrict an abortion procedure that did not contain an exception for the health of the mother.
Writing for the majority in the 5 to 4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated: "The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman." He noted that the law in question does provide an exception to save the woman's life. Abortion advocates, however, prefer "health" to "life" in the wording of legislation since a significant percentage of such abortions have been performed using an easily-defined excuse that a continued pregnancy might damage the "mental health" of the mother.
President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito, joined Kennedy and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in upholding the 2003 congressional law. Pro-abortion forces, as expected, are worried (and probably justifiably so) that this decision is the first in what will be a series that clamp down on abortions. In this one, the Court took aim at the most controversial -- and grotesque -- of abortion procedures in which the baby is partially delivered late in the pregnancy term. Its skull is then crushed and the brain is removed as the baby is extracted from the mother's womb.
The law was approved by an overwhelming bi-partisan vote of 291 - 142 in the House, and 64 - 34 in the Senate and was signed by President Bush on November 3, 2003.
The Court's decision this week IS likely to herald the beginning of a long and slow process of its curbing what has been a virtually unrestrained epidemic of abortions throughout the nation. At present, Woe v. Wade would override any major restrictions or abolitions enacted at the state level. That could be the next area pursued by the anti-abortion forces.
Writing for the majority in the 5 to 4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated: "The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman." He noted that the law in question does provide an exception to save the woman's life. Abortion advocates, however, prefer "health" to "life" in the wording of legislation since a significant percentage of such abortions have been performed using an easily-defined excuse that a continued pregnancy might damage the "mental health" of the mother.
President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito, joined Kennedy and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in upholding the 2003 congressional law. Pro-abortion forces, as expected, are worried (and probably justifiably so) that this decision is the first in what will be a series that clamp down on abortions. In this one, the Court took aim at the most controversial -- and grotesque -- of abortion procedures in which the baby is partially delivered late in the pregnancy term. Its skull is then crushed and the brain is removed as the baby is extracted from the mother's womb.
The law was approved by an overwhelming bi-partisan vote of 291 - 142 in the House, and 64 - 34 in the Senate and was signed by President Bush on November 3, 2003.
The Court's decision this week IS likely to herald the beginning of a long and slow process of its curbing what has been a virtually unrestrained epidemic of abortions throughout the nation. At present, Woe v. Wade would override any major restrictions or abolitions enacted at the state level. That could be the next area pursued by the anti-abortion forces.
Comments