Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in a 5-4 ruling on the Gonzales v. Carhart case. Signed by President George W. Bush in 2003, the act prohibits a specific type of abortion, called intact dilation and extraction, with no exceptions. Since then it had been declared unconstitutional by the Second, Eighth, and Ninth Circuit Courts, which prompted the Supreme Court to review and subsequently uphold it.
Sounds like a tedious and inconsequential bit of judicial proceeding, doesn’t it? Then I’ll jog your memory of U.S. history class to illustrate the importance of this decision. In 1973, the Roe v. Wade decision confirmed a woman’s basic right to an abortion of any kind, up to the point when the fetus could survive outside its mother’s uterus without artificial aid—usually about seven months into the pregnancy, but in any case well into the third trimester. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. This landmark decision had been upheld on the federal level ever since, despite a handful of attempts to strike it down, along with a temporary, widely-protested ban on abortion in South Dakota last year. Gonzales v. Carhart has now changed that for the very first time.
I won’t deny the fact that the act’s implications apply to only a small percentage of women who seek abortions. Intact dilation and extraction is an option for women who face serious threats to their health if the pregnancy is continued. Like many other perfectly legal activities in this country, this type of procedure can be abused and used for reasons that many people find unethical. Although a firm believer in my own right to have an abortion, I do not condone the practice of abortion as careless birth control. With choice comes responsibility. But to deny a woman medical care? That is irresponsibility on the part of our government. Chances are that those women will still receive some kind of abortion, but the alternate procedure will be more dangerous.
I cannot stress enough the threat that this decision poses to the rights of women in the United States. Although the vast majority of abortions performed are still legal, the door has now been opened to question the legality of those procedures as well. Where does one draw the line? Roe v. Wade gave as clear a definition as possible of when it could be considered ethical to perform an abortion. The line is now decidedly blurred, and our overly litigious society will not let it stay that way for long.
Bush wrote in reaction to the ruling, “Today’s 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.” Thirty-four years after women were granted the right to vote, that right was still firmly in place. Now, 34 years after Roe v. Wade, two other basic rights of women—their health and freedom of choice—risk being revoked. Does that seem compassionate to you?
