The Supremes next greatest hit will be all about late-term abortion:
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights.
The Bush administration has pressed the high court to reinstate the federal law, passed in 2003 but never put in effect because it was struck down by judges in California, Nebraska and New York.
The outcome will likely rest with the two men that President Bush has recently installed on the court. Justices had been split 5-4 in 2000 in striking down a state law, barring what critics call partial birth abortion because it lacked an exception to protect the health of the mother.
But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who was the tie-breaking vote, retired late last month and was replaced by Samuel Alito. Abortion had been a major focus in the fight over Alito’s nomination because justices serve for life and he will surely help shape the court on abortion and other issues for the next generation.
Your guess is as good as mine. I do not know when the ruling will come out, but if it is before the 2006 election and the ban on late-term abortions is overturned, it could be demoralizing to the religious right. Who knows, though- they have turned every other court defeat into a rallying cry, so I don’t know what is going to happen.
Personal opinion- I have no problem banning late-term abortions, provided there is a health exception. I guess what is at question in much of this is how broad the health exception must be, which I believe was just addressed a month or two ago. If someone knows more, please fill me in.
Otto Man
The only reason for them to revist this issue so soon — other than the minor point of federal-state distinctions — is if the winds have shifted. And given what we know about Alito and abortion, I’m sure he’ll reverse O’Connor’s vote on this and vote to uphold the ban.
This could very well mobilize voters in the fall, but it won’t be the religious right. NARAL and company will be able to use this to motivate their supporters and rally single women to vote Democratic at the polls.
p.lukasiak
here’s all you need to know, John…
Doctors who perform the procedure contend that it is the safest method of abortion when the mother’s health is threatened by heart disease, high blood pressure or cancer.
those who support the law say that the procedure does not reduce the risk to women who have heart disease, high blood pressure, and cancer.
Of course, these are the same people who believe in intelligent design, and say that global warming is a hoax — and that Saddam had WMDs that must have been shipped to Syria….
In other words, its the smart people vs the hateful, ignorant people once again…. and guess which side the guy who voted for President is on….
Doctor Gonzo
The federal law that is being challenged has absolutely no exception for the health of the mother.
In addition to heart disease, high blood pressure, or cancer, I seem to remember that sometimes late-term abortions are carried out in cases of hydrocephalus, where the fetus has an abnormal amount of fluid in the skull that destroys brain tissue. These fetuses cannot live after birth for more than a few hours and carrying them to term can have some serious risks. But I doubt that really matters to the religious right, considering Terry Schiavo and all.
SeesThroughIt
You know, if this specific issue existed in its own little bubble, I would agree and have no problem with a late-term ban provided there are ample health exceptions. But it doesn’t exist in a bubble, it’s part of a broad continuum, and it’s being pushed by people who will not be satisfied until women are absolutely never allowed to have abortions. You can’t give these people an inch because they will take five miles.
p.lukasiak
In addition to heart disease, high blood pressure, or cancer, I seem to remember that sometimes late-term abortions are carried out in cases of hydrocephalus, where the fetus has an abnormal amount of fluid in the skull that destroys brain tissue. These fetuses cannot live after birth for more than a few hours and carrying them to term can have some serious risks. But I doubt that really matters to the religious right, considering Terry Schiavo and all.
remember that case that was going on at the same time as the Schiavo case? The one where a black single mother in Texas had a child who required a ventilator to survive — and the hospital shut off the ventilator because the woman could not pay? The GOP loves brain dead white women, but didn’t lift a finger to save a black baby that the mother wanted to keep alive….
Larry
Late-term abortions are only done for medical reasons. It is not elective surgery.
Ever.
Just another example of our religious nutbar alchemists turning fact into bullshit.
Mr Furious
Just finished my own post on this, complete with a pretty picture of the new justices…
Here’s my take (I referenced the same AP story as JC):
Right, I’m sure women are undergoing that procedure for the fun or convenience factor. I’m sure medical personel line up for that one too. Sounds like a real fucking picnic for all parties.
Yeah, what do the doctors know? Better to let grandstanding politicians or sign-waving lunatics make that medical decision… I will go as far as agreeing that this sounds like an “abhorrent” procedure, which is exactly why it is rare and only done when necessary. Frankly, there is no need for legislation impacting this, and certainly not legislation that omits a health exception. I suspect even the newly installed justices will agree. I don’t doubt for a minute that a better crafted law containing an exception will eventually pass muster, hopefully this one won’t. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say this legislation is designed to fail and serve as a rallying point against “activist judges” and a society out of control.
Fortunately or unfortunately, I’m not sure which, this will play out just in time for the elections this fall. This is a massive wedge, and that’s why Bush is pushing this. I feel like this “partial-birth” battle takes place on their territory and plays in the pro-life movement’s favor. They can over-dramatically portray it as a horrible procedure that needs reigning in, yet it still falls waay short of overturning Roe, which would be an equivilent, if not superior, GOTV motivator for the pro-choice side.
So, the Court taking this now, is likely to be bad news, even if they come to the right decision.
Mr Furious
I meant to emphasize the part where I point out this legislation (by omitting the health exception) is designed to fail.
I really think this is the case. When it comes to matters of abortion restrictions, the court has been closely divided (5-4), but when it comes to health exceptions, not so much, the recent New Hampshire case went 9-0 on requiring the health exception.
Steve
One of the lower court decisions overturning the federal law was written by a district court judge here in New York. This is a conservative judge, a devout Catholic, there is little doubt he is personally pro-life. But he simply couldn’t say with a straight face that Congress was within its rights to pass this law without a health exception.
The short version of what took the judge dozens of pages to discuss is this. Congress heard a lot of testimony from medical experts before passing this law. (No word on whether any of them were “Nobel Prize nominees.”) Some of them testified about circumstances where this admittedly gruesome procedure is necessary to preserve a woman’s health. Others testified that there are no such circumstances and that the procedure is never medically necessary. I have no idea myself, although it goes to show you why the pro-life movement feels the need to demonize abortion providers – the only way anyone will believe that doctors choose “partial-birth abortion” over a less gruesome method just for the fun of it is if they believe those doctors are subhuman Nazis in the first place.
Anyway, what this court, and the other courts have said, is that Congress didn’t have the right to just pretend the medical debate doesn’t exist. They can’t just bring in a witness, deem him to be an expert, and legislatively say that this procedure is never medically necessary so therefore we don’t need a health exception. You might say this case will set the parameters for how much of reality Congress is permitted to define.
KoC
remember that case that was going on at the same time as the Schiavo case? The one where a black single mother in Texas had a child who required a ventilator to survive—- and the hospital shut off the ventilator because the woman could not pay? The GOP loves brain dead white women, but didn’t lift a finger to save a black baby that the mother wanted to keep alive….
If you’re referring to the mentally disturbed mother who thought her child was the human incarnation of the sun and simply needed water (which I’m 99% sure you are), I don’t think you want to use this case as an example of heartlessness.
I’ve seen this case brought up several times, and every time the person mentioning it fails to note that the mother WAS BATSHIT INSANE.
p.lukasiak
I’ve seen this case brought up several times, and every time the person mentioning it fails to note that the mother WAS BATSHIT INSANE.
so were schiavo’s parents….but that didn’t stop the entire GOP infrastructure from trying to keep a brain dead white woman alive while allowing a black baby to be suffocated….
Jane Finch
In my province, 3rd trimester abortions are regulated by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and are performed only in cases where the fetus has a fatal birth defect or where the life of the mother is threatened.
I realize that such a sensible, limited approach doesn’t make for great, gory “partial birth abortion” screeds, but it’s really a non-issue here.
KoC
The difference between the Schindlers and misswhatshername (aisde from the black/white issue) is that the Schindlers were sane enough to realize that they’d lose support if they went on national TV and explained that they would’ve kept Terri alive even if she were simply a head and torso, while the mother of Sun spelled it all out on CNN.
Did race play a part? I wouldn’t doubt it, but I’m sure you can find better cases (like say, Dr. Frist joining his kin on pulling the plug on dear old Grandpa Frist) to illustrate the point than this one.
John Cole
Are you kidding? If we tried something like that the wingnuts would attack the non-partisan panel of physicians set up to decide things. You saw what they did to Judge Greer, a conservative Southern Baptist, simply because he didn’t rule their way.
They would do the same damned thing- that is what they are doing right now in a post a few above this with evolution- they don’t like what the experts say, so they find their own ‘experts.’
And what pisses me off the most, is that these lunatics appear to be running the Republican party and, it seems, the country. Only the total incompetence of the Bush administration and the GOP has kept us from implementing their every disastrous scheme.
Steve
John is right. Reducing the number of unnecessary abortions is not the issue, politics is the issue. They keep passing these laws without health exceptions because they know if there was a health exception it would be easily upheld, end of political debate.
Invariably, whenever you bring up the health exception, some wingnut will show up to claim that doctors, horror of horrors, are abusing the health exception to grant exceptions based on mental health issues. Leaving aside the fact that you could easily distinguish between physical and mental issues in the statute if you wanted to, it’s amazing to see people argue that we need to let pregnant women die because if you made an exception for them, it might get abused.
Mr Furious
Straight from the comments at my cross-posted diary at Kos:
The procedure is done the way it is done because the fetal cranium is too big to pass through the birth canal, due to hydrocephalus.
This is a medical condition, and a personal tragedy for the family involved.
These wingnuts are taking cases in which real people are already suffering a horrible loss, injecting themselves into a private matter, and greatly compounding everyone’s pain and grief.
Dennis
I wonder how many of these are actually performed. I would bet few – verrry few. If they pass the ban I will bet that within a few months some poor woman ends up in dire circumstances or dies because of this law.
The administration and Republicans in congress and the supreme court will face rage. Real rage. They had better be prepared for that. Evangelicals may be loud but they really are a small minority. Too small to offset millions of angry women.
Otto Man
They should get a professor of poultry science to speak out against this. Or is he only qualified to speak out against evolution?
Dave Ruddell
Jane Finch, is that Ontario (I assume so b/c of your username)? I ask because I’ve wondered what sort of restrictions we have on abortion in the absence of any federal (criminal) law on the issue.
Krista
Imagine — a sensible, regulated approach to it. I’m not sure what Nova Scotia’s policy is on 3rd trimester abortions, but I found an interesting link about the accessibility of abortion in Canada. It definitely varies from province to province. Ontario and Quebec are definitely more progressive about it than the Maritimes are, as a general rule.
Eural
And that has what to do with removing the child from the ventilator due to a lack of money/coverage? In fact, the rightwing wants to allow more of this to happen – regardless of the parenting, regardless of the health, regardless of the risks, regardless of the circumstances there should be no abortions ever. Because it says so in the Bible. Although its very hard to find…ok, its not really there at all but God meant for it to be…
Bob In Pacifica
Let them pull the trigger and ban abortion. It will be the fastest way for the Democrats to reclaim Congress.
Lauren
It’s regularly noted that abortion comes up for debate and legislation in ways that make it designed for failure. Die-hard conservatives know that abortion is a rallying cry for a base of one-issue voters, and as long as they have abortion to weild as an emotional issue they can call on a specific voting base they can always count on. Knowing that the legislation will ultimately fail, said conservatives can keep the issue The Issue on a long-term basis.
Unfortunately the reverse is only true for pro-choice-only voters on a much smaller scale. Pro-choice voters are more likely to veer off into other political spheres to determine which candidate gets their vote — economics, foreign policy, etc — see, for instance, the number of pro-choice voters that voted for Bush (a significant number, though I can’t remember the stats).
Being unashamedly pro-choice, I sometimes wish that the pro-choice get the world they keep wishing for so that we can return to the times in which women just threw themselves down stairs, took baseball bats to their stomachs or had a slew of babies they couldn’t care for and then we can legislate some serious and sincere family planning policies that have absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the Pope or the baby Jesus.
That’s my unlearned response. If you want something decidedly more informed, let me know.
Lauren
And abortion is not in the Constitution either, because it wasn’t illegal. We just called it something else.
Lauren
I’ll quit flooding you with comments in a minute. Promise.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (which is pro-choice) states that “overall, approximately 0.17% of all abortions performed in 2000 were done via D&X. The majority of these procedures were performed in the second trimester, previability.” D&X is the actual medical term for political “partial-birth” abortion.
I find this fact sheet quite telling — it includes a breakdown of abortions by gestational weeks.
tzs
Or the case in which the fetus dies and the woman has to walk around with a corpse inside her until her body “decides” it wants to get rid of it. Yeah, that really shows how much the “pro-lifers” love life.
Jill
Bush…stay out of mine! Late term abortions are performed because the mother’s life is threatened by the pregnancy…always! This is a decision that should be made by women for women only.
Krista
Oh my god, I’m a woman, and I can’t even imagine how heart-wrenching and horrible that would be. Why are these dipshit men making those kinds of decisions for us? They’ll never have the faintest clue what we go through, will they?
Larry
Because the Bibe says you are their property.
And an owned tree doesn’t get to decide the fate of its fruit.
Krista
Larry – I had to look upthread to make sure you weren’t actually serious.
Any man who tries to tell this “tree” what to do with her “fruit” deserves a swift kick in the root.
Larry
Krista,
Wear steel-toed boots and kick him again.
Krista
I left my steel-toed boots in my other purse. Sorry. :)