Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Women's Health

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted April 19, 2007.


The Supreme Court's decision to uphold a ban on late abortions without an exception for the health of the mother sends a signal that, in many respects, the court thinks legislators, not doctors, are the ones best positioned to make health decisions.
Advertisement

The Supreme Court handing down what's being called one of the biggest setbacks for the abortion rights movement in years. On Wednesday, the court voted 5-4 to uphold a ban on late-term abortion. The so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed into law in 2003, but it had been held up by rulings from lower courts. The Supreme Court ruling marks the first time justices have agreed a specific abortion procedure can be banned. It's also the first time since Roe v. Wade that justices approved an abortion restriction that does not contain an exception for the health of the mother.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the decision "alarming" and "irrational." She said, "[The ruling] 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." She later continues, "[It] cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

Amy Goodman discusses the implications of the ruling with Louise Melling, director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. As an attorney, Melling has appeared in federal and state courts around the country to challenge laws that restrict reproductive rights.

AMY GOODMAN: Louise Melling, welcome to Democracy Now!

LOUISE MELLING: Thank you very much.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain the significance of this ruling.

LOUISE MELLING: This decision, as you said, is devastating. It's incredibly significant. This is, as you commented on, the first time the court has upheld a restriction on abortion that lacks protections for women's health. This is the first time -- this is the first-ever federal law banning certain abortions, and the court has upheld that. This really is a decision that undermines a core principle of Roe that's been in place since 1973, that women's health must remain paramount.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the significance also of this majority, the 5-4 majority. with the new Chief Justice, John Roberts, with Samuel Alito, the two George W. Bush nominees to the Supreme Court, ruling with a majority against late-term abortion.

LOUISE MELLING: Well, what you see is a real shift right. In 2000, the Supreme Court considered a law that was also called a partial-birth abortion law, and the court struck that law. And in striking that law, what the court did was, there, as it had always, recognized women's health to be paramount. What the court did in 2000 was also say, we're going to listen to doctors, and where some doctors say that procedures that might be banned here are the safest for women's health, we will defer to those doctors, and there has to be a health exception to ensure that women's health is protected. And in that decision, the court also looked to, as you said, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists view. ACOG is the leading medical organization for physicians who care for women during pregnancies. Now -- and that decision was 5-4 also, with O'Connor, Justice O'Connor, in the majority.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: abortion, abortion ban

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not About Saving Lives
Posted by: rjgwood on Apr 19, 2007 12:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right will argue that this ruling is about saving babies. It is not. If the right cared about eliminating abortion, they would be working hard to guarantee access to contraception and family planning services for every American and encouraging comprehensive sexual education that includes instructions on how to avoid pregnancy. They do not. This is an attack on the right of a woman to determine the course of her own life and an attempt by a small percentage of Americans to impose their view of morality on the rest of society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush is back to his position...
Posted by: babs on Apr 19, 2007 12:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... as poster boy for the Xtian fundies. Ironically, most anti-abortionists overwhelmingly support the wars and capital punishment. I wonder how they square that one - but what am I saying? Thinking might cause one to question, and we can't have that.

And women represent 52% of voters in America? Given this development, I find that hard to believe.

The sticking point in court that initially sealed Roe vs. Wade was the spectre of having to charge a man (or anyone, for that matter) with murder for deliberately causing a woman to miscarry (whether it be by abortion or abuse). A reasonable outcome if abortion is deemed murder and is criminalized. To the judge/jurors, that was the step they would not take, and the decision was upheld - well most of it, until today.

Why is it that grown people are just so much cannon fodder and embyros are to be protected at all costs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wait a minute!
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 19, 2007 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me get this straight. If a late term pregancy threatens the life of the mother, she is supposed to die?

That kind of cold-blooded thinking sent our kids into Iraq driving cardboard Hummers and wearing cheesecloth coats called "body armor."

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wait a minute! Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Wait a minute! Posted by: Gypsi
Gooding and Smelling are WRONG!
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 19, 2007 4:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I made my previous comment to “shake the knowledge tree,” so to speak, as a quick way of informing myself about the topic in discussion.

Gratefully, EncinoM made the following comment to my post:

“There is a provision in the statute, that the prohibition does not apply when the life of the mother is as stake. The Nebraska statute, that the previous SCOTUS decision was based on did not have such a exception and failed. The new ruling changes nothing. It is going to be used by but sides of the debate to raise funds from those who don't understand the law.”

EncinoM is correct. The anti-partial-birth abortion legislation upheld by the Supreme Court is very specific about protecting the health of women, as the extracted paragraph from the statute below shows:

"This subsection does NOT apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

For Amy Gooding to suggest otherwise in the title of her article demonstrates the worst kind of journalism. Clearly she accepted as fact without checking the legislation Louise Smelling’s assertion that the “court has upheld a restriction on abortion that lacks protections for women's health.”

Both ladies should read legislation before alarming AlterNet visitors about it.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So true, EncinoM. Posted by: HughScott
I Wouldn't Worry....
Posted by: CatDad on Apr 19, 2007 6:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's painfully obvious that the Cheney/Bush regime has politicized all levels of the judiciary to advance their agenda...Judges put into power are beholden to those who put them there. The Right Wing cronies on the Supreme Court will do as they’re told...chip away at peripheral abortion rights, but NEVER EVER overturn Roe v. Wade...This would be a catastrophe for the GOP....Roe V. Wade is the gift that keeps on giving to the Right Wing...It enables them to scream "culture of life" every election cycle without really doing anything.

Overturning Roe V. Wade would throw the issue of abortion right back to the states, where each state legislature would make their own rules regarding the procedure. Obviously, many states such as Alabama and Mississippi would ban it immediately. Abortion would be either banned or limited in an entire swath of the South...yet, when reports start filtering in of women dying from botched abortions or 14 year old girls impregnated by their fathers/uncles and they can't get an abortion...they'd be a public outcry to re-legalize the procedure.

The Right Wing will continue to give the Anti-Abortion people marginal victories...but they will NEVER overturn Roe. V. Wade. Sadly, the main issue creating the need for abortions in the first place, poverty, gets lost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why should I support a womans right to choose?
Posted by: hot karlrove on Apr 19, 2007 6:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you don't support my 2nd amendment rights?

I have a proposal, SUPPORT THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION.

Then you can have your right to choose and I keep my right to keep and bear arms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hopelessly Distracted.... Posted by: CatDad
» I'm confused Posted by: Kelly
Dissent
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Apr 19, 2007 11:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Well...you know...I mean...its like...I think." So sayeth Louise Melling of the ACLU in her rambling, syntax-lacking response to Amy Goodman's questions. Surely, there exists a better advocate for dissent than this source. We have become a nation of observers and thence opinion wanks as we chronicle the assault on dignity, individuality and preservation of constitutional rights that are designed to protect and insulate us from the establishment of any religion in this nation. A conservative-packed Supreme Court is the catalyst and more heinous decisions will follow unless Congress can be required by the voters to exercise the "advise and consent" role with reason and impartiality. Both parties are to blame and neither will respond because special interests are more worthy than the fundamental rights of individuals. Thus, the advancement of injustice is preferred to its prevention by those that seek to subjugate us to the rule of dominion and control rather than the rule of law determined by fair and impartial arbiters. While fundamentalists hail this "pro-life" decision, they also endorse the slaughter of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other venues. If the latter crimes were put to this Supreme Court, the same 5 justices would enthusiastically affirm the President's right to commence a non-pretextual invasion of a foreign sovereign nation and the slaughter of its innocents as a concomitant extension of our established "pro-life" philosophy. More than we Americans need to be wary of this progression.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dissent Posted by: MartianBachelor
It's never about saving lives
Posted by: drmimi94954 on Apr 20, 2007 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the US we have a long history of non health people making decisions about health issues. But part of the problem is that those reactionary types have conservative physicians, nurses and other health care providers setting policy.

"Do no harm" is lost on many of these people. The shift in US health care is to "save a buck not a life." It's the same people who believe that believe that healthy behavior should only come from "thinking right" (as in abstinence to prevent pregnancy and AIDS, never speaking fully about how individuals can utilize low tech items such as condoms and contraception to protect themselves).

We cannot continue to allow the "morally right" to set the tone for health or science policy (the Global Warming/ Environmental Policy fiasco is another product of the Rights desire do do revisionist science policy).

Just an activist pediatrician, who votes, organizes and doesn't shut up!

Pierrette Mimi Poinsett MD FAAP
Petaluma CA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you. Posted by: carcinoid112
mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Apr 20, 2007 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surely we can all agree that abortion isn't a moral issue with the Right, as claimed by the Republican Party and the more primitive of religions. It's about subjugation; both groups have always waged war on women and girls. Males, supported by ego, brute strength, and a gang mentality, devised these modern mythologies for their own comfort and advantage, basing them on misogyny and the notion of male superiority. The motive seems to be a combination of jealousy and fear: Jealousy at the female's ability to bring forth life (just think how males would treat childbearing if they themselves were equipped for it) and fear of having to function on a level playing field.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mick3 Posted by: MartianBachelor
You're right - they could care less about women's health.
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Apr 20, 2007 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or anyone else's but their own, for that matter. They no more support a "culture of life" than any other predator. If they did, they'd care about a fetus AFTER it's born as well as before, and about the mother, but the way this is worded, even if the fetus has catastrophic damage of one sort or another and will NEVER be viable, a doctor can be prosecuted for doing the safest form of abortion.

Then they cut funding to social programs the poor (who were mostly MADE poor by their policies) and to children, on top of helping to raise prices for care and medications - in fact, they cut funding to ALL social programs for reasons of "conserving" funds, then literally give away and LOSE TRACK OF BILLIONS! Those billions are mostly to support a war in which women and children are the main victims.

Culture of life my ass! It's a culture of domination - or Dominion(ism), if you prefer, and they don't care who gets hurt. They're about as Christian as Ghengis Kahn, too.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Roe Is A Walking Corpse
Posted by: gradioc on Apr 20, 2007 4:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Roe v. Wade is dead. It's death was decided in November of 2004. They won't make a big deal out of cutting off it's head and overturning the decision.They don't have to. Roe will die of a thousand small cuts of which this is just the first. By the time this court is through finding legitimate restrictions we will be back to a husband controlling the decision. "Save my son. I can always get a new wife" That is where they want us to be. That is where we are headed. Justice Ginsberg knows it and knows she is powerless to stop it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ban Partial Birth Abortion??!!!
Posted by: guymacher on Apr 20, 2007 4:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I shore hope they don't go a banning that partial birth abortion cuz it works right nice on my cat. She's such a dickens! Every season I'm there playing doctor with my bbq tongs. Course, I just crush their heads, not suck out the brains. Musses up my shop vac too much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

get real girls
Posted by: tbitom52 on Apr 20, 2007 5:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am almost totally opposed to abortion and I will destroy feminism. I am AUTHORIZED to do so and I WILL do so...because I love women( see below).


a Traumatic Brain Injury(TBI) Survivor, jewsyonkersislam #372

by Thomas J.P.Courtney,Esq.,Lt.Col.,US Army,Defense Intelligence Agency


A brief overlook at what it means to live as a Traumatic Brain Injury(TBI) Survivor.

Considering that Bob Woodruff (TV news reporter) just did a story on his "recovery" from TBI from an injury in Iraq,many veterans from the fighting in Iraq are TBI survivors and the NYTimes (p.1,3-14-07) just did a story on retired NFL players who experienced Brain Injury,I will briefly recount a few things I've learned about being a TBI survivor. As I had my TBI when I was 13 and am now 58,I've had a long time to try and figure out what I have become. All TBI survivors are the "same" yet no two are alike.
When I "came back","recovered",after being hit by a car,fracturing my neck,lying in a coma for 40 days,awa-
kening to find I was completely paralysed and "walking" out of a hospital on a pair of "half" crutches after six months of intensive physical therapy,I found that I was not alone -and that I had many,continuing and ever- new "disabilities". And I'll note three: an inability to communicate with others in a "normal" way,Hyper- sexuality and persistent "shivers" that constantly inhibit communication with others because they scram- ble/shock my brain (as to these,I believe they are variations/manifestations of a form of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy[TLE]).

Indeed, I was just reading about TBI and things
that I "do"/have always "done" -such as staring at a candle,staring out a window...as I experience a delicious shudder/shiver- are not unknown. It seems that these moments are somewhat epileptic (many famous authors (Doestoevsky...) and leaders( Michael Collins, leader of 1917 Irish independence movement [manic depression or TLE ?]....) have also been somewhat epileptic: temporal lobe epilepsy[TLE]).

When I "came back",I learned that I was no longer just myself but "myself" floating in a void (an 'eternal' present/eternity)within myself. And this "void" always sees and does things that I can not help but see and do - as I am a mere part(a raft) of (on) that "void" (eternity) over which I have no say.
As to my hypersexuality,it does not bother me so much as I am 58. But for nearly 40 years,at least once a day and often 2 or 3 times,it left me with overwhelming feelings of guilt,shame,embarrassment... And yet,on the other hand,you would not believe how many lovely{naked} young and beautiful ladies' bodies I have seen,touched, stroked,kissed,fondeled... or the fact that I have had sexual intercourse with a lady about 15,000-30,000 or more times. Moreover,I kid you not -and I kid you not that this is a merciless and demanding disability that leaves you with little chance to do much more....and I struggle daily.

Normal people (non-TBI survivors) like to talk and
share experiences,one-to-one. But,as a TBI survivor, such is not possible for me because my "void" talks back -within my being- to myself as well as the other people speaking (though the other speakers can not hear,only me). As you might imagine,such is extremely confusing and painful to me, producing the condition known in the TBI community as "flooding" whereby I am overloaded with messages and communications such that my "self" can neither think itself nor accomodate or process these other messages; my mind "shuts down"....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SO IF WOMEN'S HEALTH/POSSIBLE DEATH IS GRANTED, THAN OTHER ABORTIONS OUTLAWED?
Posted by: poppop_schell on Apr 20, 2007 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I totally agree that the SC decision disallowing any abortion after the tird trimester even if mother's health/life is seriously in jeopardy is WRONG HEADED and IMMORAL. BTW, I am pro-life.

So does that meean we can coalese around this bad SC decision and make all abortions illegal EXCEPT in cases of real endangerment to a woman's health or life? Or perhaps rape and incest? OR IS THE ARGUMENT STILL THAT ABORTION CAN BE DONE FOR COSMETIC PUPROSES AND BECAUSE THE CHILD IS SIMPLY NOT WANTED?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Late term abortions Posted by: mnlefty
» RE: Late term abortions Posted by: Gypsi
» RE: Late term abortions Posted by: poppop_schell
» answer to poppop_schell Posted by: mnlefty
Who makes law the Supreme Court or the legislature
Posted by: Swedish liberal on Apr 25, 2007 4:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is very strange to read on a very left liberal homepage that the Supreme Court should uphold the constitution above the legislature.

Normally the left in particular the Marxist left holds that the view of the people, the majority alwasy hold sways. The Courts cannot change legislative police, the can only interpret the law. The most extreme case in the western world is Sweden was the constitution and human rights can be set aside by vote in the legislature. By vote you can decide to execute your political opponents, it is called a peoples democracy or in the old bad world a “ Democratic Peoples Republic of ... “

This is not the case of legislature set the rules over doctors but a case of legislature is set above the Court. For instance had this not been the issue there would have been no civil rights for minorities, the welfare reforms of Roosevelt would never have passed the Supreme Court. The difference between conservatives and democrats is this, republican have a fundamentalist view of the constitution, legislature cannot extend the constitution. Democrats on the other hand is the opposite, legislature can extend the constitution.

It seems however as the Christian Right and the more extreme left liberals hold the identical view in this issue. Legislature has provenance over the constitution.

The US needs a Supreme Court that is constitutional fundamentalist as to keep the extreme right and left in check.

Even commentators in Sweden is aware of this difference, why has nobody written an article about this on these pages, is it because the extreme right and extreme left is only a mirror of one another? Is the horseshoe theory correct? Extremes meet in a circle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bobvz@cox.net
Posted by: Robert Veasey on Apr 25, 2007 6:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's no such thing as a safe abortion. For the baby, it always results in physical death; for the woman, the likely death of her soul which will have eternal consequences. Both child and mother are victims.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Women's Health
Posted by: muir on May 12, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Supreme Court Ruling Threatens Women's Healthvideo chat - porno movies free hardcore hardcore porn movies free ladyboy links - ladyboy ladyboy shemale galleries ladyboy free shemale videos young group - the internet movies mar 17 more information free hardcore close ups - and personal paris hilton pussy willow paris hilton GEFFEDEVS766GERTT9009ED perfect ass - funny videos your link here white booty privacy policy oriental women - of japanese japanese privacy policy looking for big penis photos - the average erect penis enlargement pills anonymous said lesbian hentai - hardcore porn sex lesbian licking and privacy policy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]