Partial Birth Abortion--Killed By Supreme Court
On a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court just upheld a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. It is a procedure where the baby is partially delivered, and then the skull is crushed to abort the birth. To understand how gruesome it is, you should read about it.
The Court did not strike down all late abortions, and women can still have abortions where the baby is dismembered in the uterus and then extracted. Opponents of abortion say this will not reduce the total number of abortions, it will just change the method. Abortion advocates fear this is the first step in the federal and state governments moving to regulate, and thus limit, abortions.
The case is legally and politically significant in that it shows the importance of judicial nominees. Both of President Bush's recent appointments--Roberts and Alito--voted with the majority. They joined Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. Just a few years ago a very similar law was struck down by the Court in Stenberg v. Carhart. But the recent additions to the Court resulted in a changed position; 4-5 has become 5-4.
Now in the minority, Justice Ginsberg wrote "Today's decision is alarming," in that it "refuses to take ... seriously" the Supreme Court's past decisions on abortion. Good. The Court's previous rulings were not serious. They were case studies in ignoring the Constitution to get the outcome 5 or more Justices personally wanted. That is not the job of a judge--they are supposed to interpret the law and Constitution, as written. They must ignore their own personal desires, which might be contrary to, or not mentioned in, the Constitution--if they want to legislate their own views, they need to run for Congress. Abortion never appears in the Constitution. In fact, nothing remotely close to the topic is in the Constitution. Yet, with Roe v. Wade, a constitutional "right" was invented/discovered and we've been locked in a national debate ever since.
The constitutional position is, like most issues, that abortion is a state issue. If you believe in abortion, you should convince your state to allow it. But there need not be a federal right to it imposed nationwide. Hopefully today's ruling is the first step in restoring constitutional order surrounding this issue. Neither abortion foes nor advocates, by the way, should not fear constitutional order. Our system functions best when people can debate and advocate for their positions state by state. When debate--in a legislative sense--is stifled by judicial fiat, pressure, anger, and violence build. The Supreme Court's most famous fiat on slavery, Dred Scott, ended state-by-state debate and led the nation to civil war. That is not good for anyone, on either side of an issue. It is better to let issues play out in the states, "the laboratories of democracy."
As the crier says: "God save this honorable Court!"
Thomas More
Comments