04/18/2007
Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Partial Birth Abortion
Good-bye rights, we knew ye well.
The conservative Supreme Court that President George W. Bush helped solidify with two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, today dealt a blow to four decades of decisions that favored a woman's right to choose, disregarding women's health issues as they upheld a ban on partial birth abortion by a vote of 5-4. It's the first time since Roe v. Wade in 1973, as Justice Ginsburg notes in her dissent, that the court has "[blessed] a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health."
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act was passed by Congress and signed by Bush in 2003. According to the Associated Press, today's decision "was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how — not whether — to perform an abortion. Abortion rights groups as well as the leading association of obstetricians and gynecologists have said the procedure sometimes is the safest for a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although Kennedy said alternate, more widely used procedures remain legal."
Bush hailed the ruling, saying "I am pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that prohibits the abhorrent procedure of partial birth abortion. Today's decision affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America."
Republican presidential hopefuls smiled on it as well, while Democratic contenders slammed it. John Edwards said he "could not disagree more strongly" while Barack Obama said it showed an "alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman’s medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient". Hillary Clinton echoed their positions, and spoke in more general terms about the court itself: "It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."
Justice Ginsburg, the court's only female justice, wrote the dissent. She was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer. Read it here.
Supreme Court OKs abortion procedure ban [ap]
Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Abortion Procedure [nyt]
Supreme Court Rhetoric Reveals Deep ‘Hostility’ To Women’s Rights [think progress]
You may have missed...
Turn to the Right [tr]
Roberts Proving an Artful Dodger [tr]
Posted 4:00 PM EST by Andy Towle in News, Supreme Court | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
We'll here's my chance to start up that little business. I've had my eye on this sweet little back alley. Anybody know where I can buy coat hangers in bulk?
Posted by: digger | Apr 18, 2007 4:10:21 PM
This is a dark day indeed for America.
Posted by: Karim | Apr 18, 2007 4:13:02 PM
Ah, a Supreme Court decision dedicated to every Republican woman who voted for George Bush. Congratulations, ladies! You elected 'em! May all your teenage daughters be celibate til marriage!
Posted by: the other jeff | Apr 18, 2007 4:18:44 PM
I for one am with the Supreme Court on this one guys. Sorry, it's a baby to me and should only be aborted in cases of rape and incest.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 18, 2007 4:28:05 PM
What a delightfully symbolic and idiotic move. This is a procedure that sometimes NEEDS to be used when abortion is required to save the life of the mother...why the fuck would there not be an exception written in for this?? Yes, let's tie the hands of doctors so we can gain arbitrary, forgettable victories for our militant pro-life base. Sad thing is, it will likely take a wrongful death suit somewhere down the road for this ruling to be reversed.
Conservatives are all about "less government," but they don't hesitate to stick their nose way up the ass of medicine and science that they don't understand in the least bit.
Posted by: scientitian | Apr 18, 2007 4:28:28 PM
I also find it funny that Andy says we are losing these rights but in one of his banner ads for the Timothy plan (www.timothyplan.com) it states that we need to screen our companies and not invest in companies/mutual funds that support abortion, pornography, and anti-family entertainment. Click here for your free moral audit today. I find this a tad two faced to be quite honest.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 18, 2007 4:31:53 PM
HELLO RIGHTS for Babies!
"The procedure at issue involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then crushing or cutting its skull to complete the abortion." From AP Wire.
Posted by: Johnny bananapants | Apr 18, 2007 4:32:08 PM
Oh and let me ad when the mother's life is in danger. These should be the only reasons for an abortion not the fact that I just didn't want it. There is a lot of stuff in my life I don't want but I still suffer the consequences for.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 18, 2007 4:34:50 PM
How sick and wrong is it that 5 men are making decisions about a women's body?
Posted by: Scott | Apr 18, 2007 4:37:13 PM
Good for them.
Posted by: Jordan | Apr 18, 2007 4:39:51 PM
...oh yeah. I'm so investing in coat hangers.
Posted by: Digger | Apr 18, 2007 4:40:13 PM
Without intending to launch a flame bomb and with no desire to be shredded as a right-wing, anti-choice, fundamentalist woman hater, I just have to risk asking a couple of questions.
Should there be NO limits on abortion?
Should a woman have the right to terminate a fully viable baby?
I ask these questions because I have heard many people say "yes" to these questions and I get the impression that anyone who disagrees is automatically branded a woman hater and a wing nut.
I'm sorry, call me what you will but I don't agree. I do believe there should be limits and this "partial birth abortion" certainly dances on that line for me.
Frankly, I believe that no abortion should be performed on a fetus that is as far along in gestation as the earliest known surviving baby.
I'm liberal, I'm pro-choice and I fear slippery slopes that would take away a woman's right to choose but I believe there should be limits.
There, I said it. Now Flame away!
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 18, 2007 4:42:58 PM
Matt, none of those exceptions are allowed by the law nor by this court decision.
A woman who is facing DEATH will now have no choice but to die when aborting the fetus would save her life. Yes, this decision *will* kill women. This decision was never about outlawing an "abhorrent" procedure; it was about overturning Roe v. Wade.
The number of intact dilation and extraction style abortions (which is what the medical community actually calls it) is RARE. Women aren't lining up at abortion clinics in their 8th or 9th month and asking for an abortion. The only reason that this type of abortion would be performed would be to save the life of the mother or to remove a brain-dead fetus from her womb.
Conservatives and anti-choice advocates can lick their lips and celebrate, at least until the first death comes around. Why are we listening to moonbat rightwingers and ignoring the medical community? Why haven't doctors been asked about this procedure? Whose opinion should matter: an uneducated "preacher" or a fully trained medical professional?
I'd like to write something nasty like, "I hope that Jenna or Barbara Bush find themselves in the position where they need to have a "partial birth" abortion performed to save their lives." But I am just not that nasty and wouldn't wish such a thing on anyone. But I don't know how, otherwise, that people can be brought around on this issue.
Today we saw part of our freedom die. This Supreme Court is a true threat to our liberty and our democracy. And the really sad thing is that I don't know what we can do about it. Anyone have any ideas?
Posted by: Jonathon | Apr 18, 2007 4:45:46 PM
I would never support anything that threatened the life of the mother. That is a totally separate thing in my opinion. Please don't start accusing me of supporting any law that puts women's lives in danger. That should always be the primary concern.
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 18, 2007 4:46:57 PM
Zeke-
No, there should there be NO limits on abortion.
Yes, a woman should have the right to terminate a fully viable baby.
Next Question?
Posted by: Digger | Apr 18, 2007 4:47:14 PM
Right on, "Other Jeff"... I am angered beyond words by this decision, but...let's put the responsibility squarely where it belongs: MANY, many women voted for George W. Bush. If they hadn't, he wouldn't be sitting in the White House for a second, devestating term. I'm a GAY MALE, I will never need an abortion, and I had the common sense to vote Democrat so this horrendous situation couldn't happen. My heart goes out to the women who voted Democratic in the last 2 elections--who tried to protect their bodies and their rights. Now THEY need to mobilize against the women who felt it was more important to have a homophobic, fundamentalist Christian, war mongering, anti-intellectual in the White House, than a man who supported their rights over their own bodies. As a wise statesmen once said:
"A People Get The Government They Deserve"
Oh, and talk about double-standards... Let's protect the rights of a fetus, but murder thousands of LIVING people in Iraq... There's solid Republican thinking for you. Sanctity of life, indeed...
Posted by: Nathan | Apr 18, 2007 4:48:18 PM
shameful shameful shameful. how much are you guys (i'm not American) going to put up with before a second American revolution? everything that was great about America is being flushed down the crapper by this monkey-faced boy-man with the over-arching morals.
Posted by: stony_curtis | Apr 18, 2007 4:50:12 PM
Digger, I think that your answers will put this into perspective for a lot of us. I know it did for me.
Frankly, I think your position is no less frightening and extreme than that of the extreme fundamentalists.
Thanks.
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 18, 2007 4:54:01 PM
Wouldn't it be an interesting turn of events if all of the women in this country, like, united and voted for Hillary in 2008. Not like that would ever happen, but imagine; all this right-wing Christian hoochie controlling crap would probably cease.
I've given up on democracy. It just does not work when theocratic fucksticks won't let go of control, even when the supposed majority population opposes them.
Posted by: Rad | Apr 18, 2007 4:56:14 PM
Like Zeke, I've always considered myself to be liberal and pro-choice, but I'm shocked at the negative backlash against a procedure even I thought might be overstepping bounds. I assume there are some things I don't understand about partial-birth abortion.
Before this decision, could a woman get an abortion anywhere at any time during her pregnancy legally, for reasons unrelated to her health and safety? I had always assumed that, barring an abortion performed to save a woman's life, that there was some cut off point in her pregnancy where a woman could not get an abortion because the baby was too close to being fully viable.
Also, do women get partial birth abortions for reasons other than Jonathon previously stated? Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Drew | Apr 18, 2007 4:59:21 PM
Zeke, I am not going to flame you because I understand what you're trying to say. But I do want to encourage you to learn more about the actual procedure and how many women undergo this type of procedure.
Let me tell you that the research I have done into the issue has indicated that it is a very rare procedure and almost always done at the direction of a doctor and is performed by a doctor. Women aren't just showing up at abortion clinics near to their delivery date to get one. This type of abortion is only done in rare circumstances and is almost always performed to save the woman's life.
I wouldn't have a problem with restricting abortion after the first trimester, assuming of course that exceptions for the health and life of the mother are included - including her mental health. Elective abortions in the final trimester are indeed morally dubious and I would be inclined to oppose them.
However until we can have an adult conversation in this country about abortion, we will continue to see intransigence on both sides, pro-choice and "pro-life". Both sides have to understand that there are no absolutes; there cannot be an outright ban, nor can there be an inalienable right to abortion in any and all circumstances.
Posted by: Jonathon | Apr 18, 2007 5:03:07 PM
i'd just like to point out that the term "partial birth abortion" is a term coined by right to life groups and is NOT the medical name for the procedure
i bring it up because i think it points out how well conservatives are able to cloud the issues. so well, in fact, that even pro-choice suppoters now seem to think that "partial birth abotion" is a medical term
intact dilation and extraction (IDX or intact D&X) is the medical term for the procedure.
whatever you decide to call it, though, it can't be ignored that it is sometimes a necessary procedure. the fact that the supreme court has left no room for that necessity is the real issue here.
Posted by: micheal | Apr 18, 2007 5:03:16 PM
Since when did we have the right to kill a kid?
The same group of people who protest the way chickens die for KFC are OK with killing a kid that in the LATE term is viable outside the womb?
Sometimes I thing most of you are blind to reality and drunk on partisanship. Go ahead and hate Bush, I could care less about that, but come on this is a life we're talking about. The end result is the voluntary cessation of life in the LATE term, which if done to a one day old child would be murder.
Provisions for the protection of a mother's life or extreme sitautions? Absolutely. On demand late term abortion? Come on...
Smell the coffee?
Posted by: DVDINORL | Apr 18, 2007 5:06:05 PM
RE: Matt's comment regarding the Timothy Plan. I'm having that domain blocked from advertising here. We would certainly not accept advertising revenue from a company with those kinds of values. It most likely appeared contextually as ads do when they are associated with the content of a particular post. If anyone else sees ads for these kinds of "pro-family" hateful groups, please notify us immediately. Thanks.
Posted by: andy | Apr 18, 2007 5:06:21 PM
Zeke-
I find your position just as scary and extreme and as a queer it makes me very sad. No doubt you consider your opinion enlightened. Pity.
Posted by: Digger | Apr 18, 2007 5:07:41 PM