Posted on 06/22/2003 2:12:10 PM PDT by Carthago delenda est
The writer is one of the lawyers who in 2000 successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Stenberg vs. Carhart, in which the court struck down a Nebraska law against the procedure ofter termed partial-birth abortion.
On June 4, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill banning so-called partial birth abortions - just three years after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar Nebraska ban. The bill, which is similar to one already passed by the Senate, is expected to be signed by the president shortly.
Proponents of the bill have been working overtime to give the impression that the only people who could oppose such bans are extremists. The reality, however, is far different. No fewer than 50 federal and state court judges in 21 lawsuits - judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike - have examined what these laws actually do and have held that they are unconstitutional.
In Stenberg vs. Carhart, the Supreme Court - the final arbiter of what our Constitution protects - ruled that Nebraska's law had two fatal flaws. While its supporters had claimed the law would ban only one post-viability method of abortion, the court ruled that it actually would ban the safest and most common methods of abortion starting at the beginning of the second trimester of pregnancy - long before fetal viability.
In addition, the court ruled that the law's failure to make any exception to protect a woman's health violated one of the core principles of Roe vs. Wade - that states cannot endanger women's health. A ban without a health exception, the court held, would endanger women because it would prevent the physician from performing the method of abortion that was the safest for a particular woman. Rather than fixing this fundamental defect, Congress simply added a "finding" that the banned procedures are never warranted for health reasons. In cases stretching back to 1803, however, the Supreme Court has consistently held that lawmakers can't just ignore rulings they dislike by adopting their own "findings."
As counsel to Dr. LeRoy Carhart - the Bellevue physician who challenged the Nebraska law - and as part of the team of lawyers that successfully challenged similar statutes in 13 other states, I am experiencing a kind of legal deja vu. The Supreme Court's decision in Carhart was the culmination of a 6-year battle and resolved these issues. So why are we now faced with the prospect of going back to the courts on the exact same issues? Because supporters of this bill have simply chosen to ignore the court's decision.
The new federal bill suffers from the same two flaws that doomed Nebraska's law, as if Stenberg vs. Carhart never happened. Once again, rather than limiting the ban to a single procedure, the sponsors have written a ban so broad that it would criminalize the safest and most common methods of abortion starting at the beginning of the second trimester. Even more remarkable perhaps, the sponsors have completely ignored the Supreme Court's holding that any ban must contain a health exception. In essence, its authors have put a new coat of paint on a condemned house and are hoping that no one notices.
Why would the sponsors promote and President Bush pledge to sign an unconstitutional bill? It's hard to escape the conclusion that their real purpose is to erode further the legal protections for women's right to control their bodies and lives. And that they are restarting the legal battle in hopes that, by the time the fight over this new bill reaches the Supreme Court, the court's composition will have changed. With the current Congress and president, anti-choice activists are optimistic that, in the event of an opening on the court, any new appointment would tip the balance against the right to choose abortion.
The Center for Reproductive Rights is poised to fight this law once more. With Supreme Court precedent on our side, I am confident that we can win in the lower courts. However, just like my opponents, I am all too aware that the appointment of a new justice could spell the end of Carhart and Roe vs. Wade, both of which are currently hanging by a one-vote majority.
• Smith is director of the Domestic Legal Program of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Assuming the validity of your argument, you make an excellent argument as to why the US should be shut to new residents.
They never get in the country. Nothing to it.
Since I don't hold dual citizenship, I have no trouble with putting an end to dual citizenship "applying to me".
First of all, I live in northern virginia which ain't far from sweden to begin with. Second, we disagree on a core values issue. Many of us believe this is absolute: killing an innocent human being purely for convenience is murder of the foullest kind.
If Dante were alive he'd create a circle of hell lower than the Judas's ninth for perpetrators of abortion and their apologists. By comparison with abortion, Macbeth is a comedy. And the blood of millions will not wash off--it will damn many to the tenth circle.
The arguments you present are simply irrevelant to those who believe that abortion in this country is mass murder on an horrible, unprecedented scale.
$500 to the first person who can find where the US Government had the authority to declare Roe v Wade or pass a ban on partial birth abortion that carries legal weight outside of federal land. Hint: it ain't there.
Well, pay up! It's right there in the section about the right to privacy . . . uh . . . wait a minute . . .
Does anyone know, - What is the orgin of " Trimesters" ? Is 'trimester' a legitimate medical term that was used in medical science before the modern 'abortion' debates of the 60's & 70's (& to present)? - OR, is the term "trimester" merely 'abortion-speak'? Was "trimester" merely a creation of the proaborts and/or the 'Blackmun Court' with its Roe/Doe opinions?
A partial birth abortion is NEVER safer than a cesaerian and NEVER medically necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.