When President Bush appointed Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, members on both sides of the abortion debate waited to see what action the new conservative majority would take on the issue of abortion rights. The first answer came April 18, when the Court, in a 5-4 ruling, voted to uphold a law banning a certain type of late-term abortion.
The law, known as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2003. The term “partial birth abortion” is one used by abortion opponents to describe a procedure known medically as “intact dilation and evacuation,” or IDX. The procedure involves dilating the cervix and removing the intact fetus. Opponents of the procedure denounce it as inhumane and President Bush said the Court’s decision to uphold the ban, “represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America.”
IDX abortions, which are usually performed around the 21st week of pregnancy, but are sometimes implemented as early as 12 weeks into gestation, are not particularly common. According to voluntary responses to an Alan Guttmacher Institute survey, the procedure only accounts for .17 percent of the estimated one million abortions that are performed in the United States each year. Despite the infrequency of the procedure, the ban was deemed unconstitutional in three separate U.S. District Courts (Northern District of California, Southern District of New York, and the District of Nebraska) on the grounds that it does not allow for exceptions in cases in which the health of the woman is at risk. Furthermore, any physician who performs the procedure is subject to serve up to two year in prison.
Though many consider the ruling to be a win for human rights, pro-choicers consider it a giant step back for their cause. Among those appalled by the ruling is Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the sole female representative on the Supreme Court. Ginsberg said the majority’s opinion, “cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives.”
Referring of course to the landmark decision in 1973’s Roe v Wade, Ginsberg brings forward a point of concern for many pro-choice organizations. These organizations fear that Wednesday’s ruling is the first step toward further restrictions on abortion rights.
Visitors to Planned Parenthood’s website are greeted with this message: “Donate now as Planned Parenthood mobilizes in response to the Supreme Court’s reckless decision to uphold the federal abortion ban — a ban that tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them.”
Though messages like these may seem extreme, the organizations that advocate abortion rights should be concerned. Any law that limits abortion rights is a step toward the anti-abortionists’ goal of ultimating outlawing abortions in the United States, and with more conservative justices on the Supreme Court bench, that possibility may very well become a reality in the coming years. In the wake of this victory, conservative lawmakers are sure to pass even stricter anti-abortion laws across the country.