Supreme Court rules on abortion ban

On Apr. 18, the Supreme Court ruled to uphold a ban on an abortion procedure called intact dilation and evacuation (D and E), a variant on what the court called the "usual second-trimester procedure of dilation and evacuation." Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The sole woman on the court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, denounced the ruling, which she called "alarming" and "irrational," as well as a reversal of legal precedent and an attack on women's health. Her dissent was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer and David Souter. Ginsberg said that the Congressional record contains letters from numerous medical professionals and statements from nine medical organizations including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which represents 90 percent of the country's OB-GYNs, which attest that pregnant women's health would be endangered by the ban, and that intact D and E "carries meaningful safety advantages over other methods." She noted that "no comparable medical groups supported the ban." Although intact D and E is not performed before the 12th week of pregnancy, Ginsburg also pointed out the blurring of the distinction between abortions performed before and after the point of fetal viability, which generally occurs between the 23rd and 25th week. Ginsberg said that the government was only given the right to restrict post-viability abortions in previous rulings, such as the 1992 lawsuit Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, while this ruling applies to pre-viability abortions as well. The new law, the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban–in contrast to the Apr. 18 court ruling–does not specify a medical procedure. As Ginsberg said in her dissent, "The term 'partial-birth abortion' is neither recognized in the medical literature nor used by physicians who perform second trimester abortions." Opponents of the ban say the wording of the law is so vague that it could apply to any abortion as early as 12 weeks. The ruling dismayed reproductive health advocates. Pro-choice protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court, and the Family Planning Advocates of New York State mobilized almost immediately, protesting at the State Capitol building in Albany. Chapters of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) Pro-Choice America organized protests in cities nationwide, including New York City, Austin, TX; San Francisco, CA; and Seattle, WA. In St. Louis, the Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and other pro-choice groups organized a rally, and in San Diego, CA, 100 members of National Organization of Women (NOW) protested the decision. The ACOG, the American Medical Women's Association, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), NOW, the Feminist Majority Foundation and other groups spoke out against the ruling. The ACOG said that the safety advantages of intact D and E are "widely recognized–in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice and in mainstream medical care." "When the Supreme Court considered this issue seven years ago, they agreed that women's health was a paramount concern and doctors, not politicians, were in the best position to decide what procedures were safest. What a difference seven years, a new president, and two new justices, can make," said Dr. LeRoy Carhart. In 2000, Carhart sued and won the high court's ruling in Stenberg vs. Carhart, which declared Nebraska's abortion ban unconstitutional. In that ruling, justices cited the law's lack of a health exception for women and its vague wording. In October 2003, Congress passed the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as a direct challenge to the Stenberg vs. Carhart ruling. Bush signed it into law that November. Three lawsuits immediately challenged its constitutionality. In all three district courts, the ban was found to be unconstitutional, and the rulings were upheld in three federal appeals courts. The Supreme Court ruled on two challenges to the ban, Gonzales vs. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Carhart and three other physicians, and Gonzales vs. Planned Parenthood Federation of America. A third challenge to the ban, National Abortion Federation (NAF) vs. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians. In 2006, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put that case on hold until the Supreme Court issued a decision in the other two. The Apr. 18 decision requires that the ban be upheld in that case as well. Under the new law, which may become effective within three weeks, a woman would still be able to access certain kinds of second trimester abortions but would not necessarily be able to have the banned procedure, even if her doctor considered it the safest and best for her individual circumstances. Doctors found guilty of breaking the law could face up to two years in prison. Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University said that "[Justice] Kennedy admits there are women whose health is going to be endangered by this regulation. He is effectively saying: 'Come to court and you may be able to show this law is invalid as applied to you.' But people facing medical emergencies can't always get lawyers and go to court. What this means in practice is a certain number of dead women." On Apr. 19, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) reintroduced the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify in federal law the principles established in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that found abortion was part of a woman's constitutional right to privacy. If passed, the Freedom of Choice Act would likely lead to court challenges that could overturn the ban, and would bar government at any level from passing laws that outlaw abortion before the fetus is viable or after viability if the woman's health or life is endangered. Supporters like NOW and the ACLU say the legislation will help inoculate women from a wave of new restrictions on abortion that is expected to follow the Supreme Court decision. According to NARAL, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington have passed state versions of the Freedom of Choice Act. At the federal level prospects are cloudy for the bill, which has been introduced in previous Congresses but has failed to win passage. President Bush would almost certainly veto any legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade into federal law, and even though Congress is now controlled by the Democrats, pro-choice activists cannot count every member of the majority party as an ally.