• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

The Supreme Court upheld Tuesday a 2003 federal law which bans partial-birth abortions – a law which has faced dissent from organizations and politicians that support abortion rights.

The 5-4 decision, made by a court with a conservative majority, marks the first time since the ruling for Roe v. Wade established a woman’s right to an abortion that the court has supported a federal restriction on a specific abortion procedure.

A partial-birth abortion involves the removal of a fetus feet first from the women’s uterus up until the neck. A tube is then inserted into a cavity in the fetus’ neck, removing the brain and collapsing the skull, thus terminating the pregnancy.

Students and leaders from various campus groups expressed support and disappointment in the upholding of the 2003 legislation.

While opponents of abortion say they view the decision as an important milestone, supporters are concerned that the law does not provide exceptions for partial-birth abortions due to health-related reasons. Exceptions, however, are made if the woman’s life is at stake.

“I think it’s a very disappointing decision. It’s a blow to women’s health and women who need this procedure. The flaw in the law is that there’s no exemption for woman’s health. Not allowing an exemption is a shame,” said Gabe Rose, president of the Bruin Democrats.

Lila Rose, no relation, president of Live Action, an organization that supports government restrictions on abortion, responded very differently. She said she hopes the court decision marks a turning point for legislation that promotes greater abortion restrictions.

“I think it’s a wonderful thing that our country is starting to recognize these tiny human beings as ones that need to be protected by law,” Lila Rose said.

This decision comes more than a year after President Bush appointed two conservative judges – Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Both justices, who upheld the 2003 legislation, were elected to replace one judge who traditionally voted liberally and another who had been a swing vote.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, said in this situation, because of the controversial procedure involved in partial-birth abortions, the government should intervene in such personal matters.

“The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman,” Kennedy wrote.

And though opponents argue that the legislation is not constitutional because it does not exempt women from the ban for health reasons, Kennedy maintains that abortion doctors should not be given too much flexibility, especially in regard to what some believe to be a graphic procedure.

“The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice,” he wrote.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said this decision should not be held higher than previous abortion court cases that have repeatedly reaffirmed a woman’s right to choose.

“(The ruling) cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court,” Ginsburg wrote.

Nancy Keenan, president of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion: Pro-Choice America, said the basis and precedents set by previous court cases should have been considered in this current court case.

“Today’s decision shows Bush’s appointees have moved the court in a direction that could further undermine Roe v. Wade and protections for women’s health,” Keenan said in a statement.

In 2000, the court ruled that a Nebraska statute banning partial-birth abortions was unconstitutional in that it lacked exceptions for women’s health-related issues and would put an unnecessary burden on women who were seeking and needing abortions in the second trimester.

Following the decision, the then-Republican-controlled Congress introduced this piece of legislation, which was avidly supported by the president.

Gabe Rose said he fears that the influence of this court decision could trickle down to the state level, allowing those legislatures to impose more restrictions on women’s accessibility to an abortion.

But Lila Rose said she hopes this is only a turning point for anti-abortion legislation.

“The Supreme Court decision is considering the unborn. ... I hope that we can begin to consider these lives and this will open more decisions to protect the unborn,” Lila Rose said.

With reports from Bruin wire services.