A divided U.S. Supreme Court, in a recent 5-to-4 decision, upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which President Bush signed into law, but which never was enacted due to legal challenges.
It marked the first time since the high court's landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that the justices upheld a nationwide ban on a specific type of abortion procedure. Under the statute, doctors who perform the late-term procedure face up to two years in federal prison.
In penning the 39-page majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected arguments that the statute imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion, that it was too vague, or that it failed to provide an exception for abortions to protect the health of a pregnant woman.
"The government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life. Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child.
The Act proscribes a method of abortion in which a fetus is killed just inches before completion of the birth process. Congress determined that the abortion methods it proscribed had a ‘disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant,'" Kennedy wrote.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the court, called the decision "alarming," and took the rare step of reading a portion of her dissent from the bench.
"The court's opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide, a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
For the first time since Roe, the court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health," Ginsburg said.
The President's two appointees to the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Samuel Alito, both voted to uphold the ban.
The President said he was "pleased" with the court's action to prohibit the "abhorrent procedure" of partial-birth abortion.
"The 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. The partial-birth abortion ban, which an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress passed, and I signed into law, represents a commitment to building a culture of life in America. The Supreme Court's decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made over the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law," the President stated.
Dr. Paul Schenck, executive director of the National Pro-Life Action Center, applauded the high court's decision to "end this despicable practice" of partial-birth abortion.
"In its opinion, the Court has begun to right a terrible wrong. Partial-birth abortions, as testimony in the lower courts showed, and oral arguments in the Supreme Court confirmed, is equivalent to infanticide. It is an immoral, medically unnecessary act that should be condemned not only by this Court, but every court and legislature in the country. The Court's majority has upheld the rejection of these acts against innocent children at the very threshold of their births. Their decision is an encouraging demonstration of moral fortitude," Schenck said. Concerned Women for America said, "justice was served in this decision."
CWA President, Wendy Wright, noted, "In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court concurred with the majority of Americans that partial-birth abortions are gruesome, inhumane and never medically necessary. This ban exposed an abortion procedure too grisly for most Americans to stomach, too inhumane to be done on even convicted terrorists, and yet, was being committed against defenseless babies. Abortion is deadly to the child and dangerous for the mother.
It is the responsibility of government to protect all citizens equally under the law. Although America still allows the killing of innocent children for convenience, this decision will begin to restore the humanity of unborn children in the eyes of the law," Wright said.
In praising the ruling, Father Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life, said, "Congress and the vast majority of state legislators and American citizens have made it clear over the last decade that this procedure–by which a child is killed in the very process of delivery–has no place in a civilized society."
Feminists for Life of America President, Serrin Foster, called partial-birth abortion, "a procedure that hurts women."
"At the end of this procedure, the woman has an empty womb, empty arms and a hole in her heart. We all must create a society where no woman will feel driven to abortion," Foster added.
In speaking out against the decision, Louise Melling, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said it "undermines a core principle of Roe v. Wade that women's health must remain paramount." Melling added, "The decision invites politicians to meddle even further into the doctor-patient relationship by passing additional restrictions on abortion."
Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, called the ruling a "stunning assault on women's health" and the expertise of doctors who care for them.
"It took just a year for this new Court to overturn three decades of established law. In direct contradiction to earlier rulings and established law, the Court announced that there are some aspects of women's health it is willing to sacrifice. 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," Northup said.
The Rev. Carlton Veazey, president and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, called the decision, a "serious setback for women's health" and for a woman's ability to "follow her conscience" in medical decisions.
"While there is no question of our commitment to the value of all human life, we are alarmed that the Court has taken a step toward valuing a potential person over the woman whose life may be at risk.
This decision moves us closer to the time when sectarian religious viewpoints will govern medical decisions for all Americans, whether they share those viewpoints or not," Veazey said.
The high court's ruling prompted the reintroduction of the Freedom of Choice Act in both the House and Senate. The measure would codify Roe v. Wade into law and guarantee a woman's right to an abortion in all 50 states.
The bill's co-sponsor, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, (D-NY), said reintroduction of the legislation could not come at a more critical time.
"We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman's constitutional right to choose. This Supreme Court may have gone out of the business of protecting women's rights; it is time that Congress stand up to the challenge.
We must make sure that women are no longer at the mercy of a Supreme Court and politicians determined to destroy their fundamental rights," Nadler said.
The measure prompted the President to send identical letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), warning the congressional Democratic leadership against passage of such legislation.
"I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage. I am writing to make sure that there is no misunderstanding of my views on these important issues.
Advances in science have made it possible to see life developing at earlier stages and underscore America's obligation to protect helpless and innocent life from destruction. These issues are deeply emotional and are made even more complicated when the American taxpayer is asked to fund efforts that end human life," the President stated.
Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life Committee, applauded the President's letter.
"We appreciate that the president is drawing a bright line–he will veto any appropriations bill, or any other bill, that would weaken the existing laws against federal funding of abortion,or weaken other pro-life policies," Johnson said.
In praising the letter, Family Research Council President, Tony Perkins, said, "President Bush's continued leadership in defense of the unborn is desperately needed at this time. U.S. taxpayers should not be forced to fund the killing of human life and the destruction of the family. The President's legacy in support of a culture of life is solidified with this letter," Perkins said.
Perkins' view was shared by Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family Action.
"President Bush is not the first man to occupy the Oval Office who talked about valuing pre-born life, but no administration has backed up those words with as much consistent policy support as his has.
The letter demonstrates the depth of the President's core conviction that all human life, at every stage of development, is sacred," Dobson said.
Also, in the wake of the high court's decision, North Dakota Republican Governor John Hoeven signed into law a ban that would outlaw abortion in the state in nearly all circumstances in the event the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade.
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]