Supreme court upholds partial birth abortion ban

Posted by blood roses at 6:59pm Apr 18 '07
You must sign in to send blood roses a message

Here is a legal analysis of the decision.

Here's an overview of what they're banning (from the source above):

In the usual second-trimester procedure, "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), the doctor dilates the cervix and then inserts surgical instruments into the uterus and maneuvers them to grab the fetus and pull it back through the cervix and vagina. The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety. The procedure that prompted the federal Act and various state statutes, including Nebraska's, is a variation of the standard D&E, and is herein referred to as "intact D&E". The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull.

So the procedure described above as "standard D&E" is still allowed, but the procedure described as "intact D&E" is banned. Which makes me ask... what's the point? Standard D&E doesn't sound less "gruesome and inhumane" (to use the words of the court) than intact D&E, so what exactly is the point of banning one and not the other? Just to look tough on abortion to please Bush's followers on the Christian right?

They address that issue... kind of.

The Act's ban on abortions involving partial delivery of a living fetus furthers the Government's objectives. Congress determined that such abortions are similar to the killing of a newborn infant. This Court has confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to prevent practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned.

...

The objection that the Act accomplishes little because the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than intact D&E, is unpersuasive. It was reasonable for Congress to think that partial-birth abortion, more than standard D&E, undermines the public's perception of the doctor's appropriate role during delivery, and perverts the birth process.

So it's illegal because... it looks more like killing an infant than other abortion procedures do. Good lord. I suppose that's not entirely surprising from a society that puts so much value on appearance.

Also, there's no provision for the woman's health. So if a doctor decides for some medical reason that the safest abortion procedure for this woman is intact D&E... too freaking bad for her.

From the dissenting opinion (all quotes are from the source above):

It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It 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 (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health.

What does everyone think?