City College News

On Wednesday, April 18th, 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

A partial birth abortion, referred to by the American Medical Association as "intact dilation and extraction" involves a method of abortion that takes place in the second trimester of pregnancy, usually between eighteen to twenty-six weeks of gestation.

It is described in the ruling however as a "gruesome and inhumane procedure" in which the fetus is delivered until just its head is left inside the womb, at which time the back of its skull is punctured with a sharp instrument. The dead fetus is then removed from the woman's body.

When President Bush approved the ban in 2003, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (PPGG), the Center for Reproductive Rights, the National Abortion Federation and the American Civil Liberties Union contested it in federal district courts around the nation. Top doctors at major medical facilities protested the ban, claiming that it would prevent them from providing care that is in the best interests of a client's health.

Several other medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Nurses Association, also denounced the ban. Until the recent ruling, every court that examined the ban opposed it because, among other things, it does not protect women's health.

The ruling does state that an exception can be made if a woman's life is at risk; however, it does not take into consideration whether or not the woman's health will be affected. Supporters of the ban insist that the term "health" is too broad, and that a viable fetus that does not pose a risk to the life of the mother should be carried to term. A viable fetus is one that can survive in an extra uterine environment-usually after 26 weeks of gestation, though there is no set definition.

Under this law, women will still be able to access certain kinds of second trimester abortions but not the newly banned procedure, even if her physician considers it the safest and best option. The ban is also notable in that it does not include exceptions for rape and incest victims.

"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," Bush said. "For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way. Today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child."

It was just over a year ago that the President appointed two conservative justices to the Supreme Court, a move that led many to worry that Roe vs. Wade was in danger of being overturned.

In the wake of this recent decision, leading pro-choice advocates have ruefully observed that it took the new court just one year to overturn three decades worth of established law.

"The Court has dramatically reduced the ability of doctors to provide services that, in their opinion, are the safest / best options to protect women's health," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "This Court believes that Members of Congress - not doctors - are in the best position to make medical decisions for their patients. This is a terrifying development, one with implications far beyond the abortion debate. Every American who cares about women's health, and doctors' ability to treat their patients appropriately, should be alarmed by this ruling."

Eve Gartner, PPFA's Deputy Director of Litigation and Law said, "[Today] the court took away an important option for doctors who seek to provide the best and safest care to their patients. This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them." Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only female Supreme Court Justice and writer of the minority dissent, concurred, calling the decision "a shocking setback for women's health."

The ruling will likely be a hot-button issue in the upcoming Presidential election. Former New York Mayor and possible future Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani has stated that he supports the ban, while Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama has spoken out against it by saying that he is "extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."

Article Tools