Marc Flemming
Renovator
offline
Registered: Jan 2003
Local time: 08:14 AM
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 3663
|
Abortion-rights activists are pledging an energetic court fight after the Senate's vote Tuesday imposing the first nationwide restrictions on abortion since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the practice in 1973.
Their reasons are obvious. In 21 cases, including one that reached the Supreme Court, judges consistently have struck down similar state bans on a gruesome procedure that opponents call "partial-birth" abortion. The courts found every such law was unconstitutionally vague and failed to allow an exception to protect the health of women who might need the procedure.
Less well known is that supporters of the new abortion ban also are spoiling for a court battle. But they are less forthright about their reasons.
Their goal is not to curb this particularly controversial procedure, in which a doctor partially removes a fetus from the womb and drains its skull. If it were, they could have enacted more specific legislation that would have passed constitutional muster long ago and confidently declared victory.
Instead, abortion opponents want the broadest limits on abortion they can get. By targeting one procedure with an intentionally broad ban, they are gambling that the courts will open the way to prosecute doctors who perform many types of abortions, even as early as 12 weeks into a pregnancy.
This eight-year battle has distinguished neither side. Abortion-rights advocates got caught early on underestimating how often doctors perform what they call "dilation and extraction." And they ignore how disturbing that procedure is.
Abortion opponents have stubbornly refused courts' clear instructions on how to narrowly structure a law banning partial-birth abortions except in cases where the life or health of the woman is in danger.
They claim the new law from Congress meets the courts' demand for a tighter definition of the procedure. But they still haven't made exceptions for cases in which a doctor thinks the procedure is necessary for the woman's protection. And they define partial-birth abortion in imprecise terms that could encourage prosecution of doctors who perform other types of abortion.
Backers of the new law acknowledge that they're eager for the inevitable appeal. They hope it will provoke the Supreme Court to review and reverse its decision 30 years ago overturning state abortion bans. Such a strategy is a recipe for bringing back the shameful era of back-alley abortions, when thousands of women suffered permanent and sometimes fatal injuries at the hands of illicit and untrained practitioners.
Those legal tactics ignore the wishes of a public that opposes partial-birth abortions but strongly supports a woman's right to end a pregnancy. While polls show 70% of the public supports a ban on "partial birth" abortion, four out of five say abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances.
Given these conflicted attitudes, no one is well served by the prolonged court fight that will follow President Bush's bill-signing ceremony in coming days. It will not bring a quick end to partial-birth abortions. Yet it will raise new threats to a right most Americans want preserved: reproductive choice that makes abortions safe, legal and rare.
Source: USA Today
|
10-23-2003 07:53 PM
