FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Surpeme Court Targets Abortion Rights

by NICOLE COLSON

The right of women to choose abortion suffered a serious blow last week when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a 2003 federal ban on the late-term abortion procedure wrongly called “partial-birth” abortion by the right wing.

In a narrow 5-4 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, a majority of the justices upheld the law as constitutional–in contrast to three previous federal appeals court rulings against the federal ban because, among other things, it failed to provide an exception for the health of the woman.

This is the first time since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion that the Supreme Court has approved a ban on a specific abortion procedure–in this case, the late-term procedure known as “intact dilation and extraction.”

Intact D&E is the procedure used most frequently in cases where there are severe fetal abnormalities, or the life or health of the woman is in danger. Under the federal ban, doctors found guilty of performing the procedure could face two years in prison.

The Court’s ruling flies in the face of medical opinion by claiming that intact D&Es are never medically necessary–something the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which represents approximately 90 percent of OB/GYNs across the U.S., strongly disputes.

Women will now be forced to seek alternative medical procedures that may come with a higher risk of infection, bleeding or other complications. And according to ACOG, the ruling “will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.”

“Today’s decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women,” said ACOG President Dr. Douglas Laube. “It leaves no doubt that women’s health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.”

* * *

WHILE INTACT D&E is used in only 0.17 percent of all abortions performed, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the Supreme Court’s decision purposely opens the door to much wider future attacks on the right to choose at any point in a woman’s pregnancy.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy–joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia–wrote in the majority decision that the “government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life” and “an interest in promoting respect for human life at all stages in the pregnancy.”

The opinion also asserts that “a fetus is a living organism within the womb, whether or not it is viable outside the womb.” That could open the door to what many suspect will be future restrictions on first- and second-trimester abortions.

As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg replied in a scathing dissenting opinion joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer, the majority decision “cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court.”

In addition, the new ruling undermines Roe v. Wade by abandoning 30 years of Supreme Court precedent requiring any law restricting abortion to include an exception for the physical and mental health of the woman. A nearly identical law to the federal ban the justices upheld was struck down seven years ago because it contained no health exception.

Women and men alike should also be outraged by the justices’ condescension toward women and their ability to make decisions for themselves.

The majority opinion peddles the idea that “some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained” (note the word “infant,” as opposed to “fetus”).

Further, “some women” will not understand the procedure in advance, and will experience “severe depression” and “loss of self-esteem” following a late-term abortion, Kennedy writes–and concludes, therefore, that the best protection for them is to remove access to the procedure altogether.

As Ginsburg commented in her dissenting opinion, “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution–ideas that have long since been discredited.”

* * *

NOT SURPRISINGLY, the right wing is ecstatic about the decision–seeing it as a huge step forward in the drive to do away with abortion rights altogether.

“We’re moving beyond putting roadblocks in front of abortions to actually prohibiting them,” Troy Newman, president of the anti-choice group Operation Rescue, gloated to the Los Angeles Times. “This swings the door wide open.”

Newman added that he and other anti-choice activists will now push legislation in the states to: ban all abortions of viable fetuses, unless the mother’s life is endangered; ban mid- and late-term abortion for fetal abnormalities such as Down syndrome or a malformed brain; require doctors to tell patients in explicit detail what a procedure will involve, show them ultrasound images of the fetus, and warn them that they may become suicidal after the procedure; and lengthen waiting periods so that women must reflect on such “counseling” for several days before obtaining an abortion.

Ever since the Roe decision in 1973, conservatives have chipped away at abortion rights bit by bit, to undermine the law as a whole–first by denying federal funds for poor women to obtain abortions, then by adding restrictions like mandatory waiting periods, parental consent laws and other burdens on a woman’s right to choose.

As the New York Times commented, “For anti-abortion activists, this case has never been about just one controversial procedure. They have correctly seen it as a wedge that could ultimately be used to undermine and perhaps eliminate abortion rights eventually.

“The court has handed the Bush administration and other opponents of women’s reproductive rights the big political victory they were hoping to get from the conservative judges Mr. Bush has added to the bench. It comes at a real cost to the court’s credibility, its integrity and the rule of law.”

George W. Bush applauded the ruling, sanctimoniously calling the ban a reflection of the “compassion and humanity of America.” He was joined in his approval by every Republican presidential candidate, including supposed “social moderate” Rudolph Giuliani.

For their part, Democratic Party leaders–including presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards–strongly condemned the ruling, rightly calling it an attack on abortion rights overall.

Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Jerold Nadler reintroduced the “Freedom of Choice Act”–legislation promised, but not passed, under the Clinton administration that would bar the government from interfering with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or to terminate a pregnancy–the day after the ruling.

This marks a change from just two years ago, when Clinton and other Democratic Party leaders talked about the need for their party to play down support for abortion rights in order to curry favor with moderate and conservative voters.

The Democrats’ newfound confidence in speaking out on behalf of abortion rights is welcome, but it should be remembered that they themselves helped pass the federal ban on intact D&Es back in 2003–with 17 Democratic senators and 63 Democratic representatives voting in favor.

The Democrats have largely gone along with previous restrictions, including parental consent and notification laws, mandatory waiting periods and more–while conceding ideological ground to the right by using language not dissimilar to Kennedy’s in this latest ruling about abortion causing “regret” and harm.

What is truly “a regret” is the consequences of the anti-abortionists’ offensive and the failure of the Democrats to mount a defense of women’s rights. Today, at least 87 percent of counties in the U.S. have no abortion provider–a stark reminder that in many ways, abortion is a “right” in name only.

Relying on the courts or politicians to protect our rights is a losing strategy. Abortion rights were won in the first place because there was a movement in the 1960s and ’70s that organized hundreds of protests across the country, demanding not only access to abortion, but equal pay, child care and an end to discrimination.

We need to return to that strategy–of speaking up without apology for a woman’s right to control her own body–to turn back the anti-abortionists’ offensive.

NICOLE COLSON is a reporter for the Socialist Worker.

 

NICOLE COLSON writes for the Socialist Worker.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
December 09, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Nasty As They Wanna Be
Henry Giroux
Trump’s Second Gilded Age: Overcoming the Rule of Billionaires and Militarists
Andrew Levine
Trump’s Chumps: Victims of the Old Bait and Switch
Chris Welzenbach
The Forgotten Sneak Attack
Lewis Lapham
Hostile Takeover
Joshua Frank
This Week at CounterPunch: More Hollow Smears and Baseless Accusations
Paul Street
The Democrats Do Their Job, Again
Vijay Prashad
The Cuban Revolution: Defying Imperialism From Its Backyard
Michael Hudson - Sharmini Peries
Orwellian Economics
Erin McCarley
American Nazis and the Fight for US History
Mark Ames
The Anonymous Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying
Yoav Litvin
Resist or Conform: Lessons in Fortitude and Weakness From the Israeli Left
Conn Hallinan
India & Pakistan: the Unthinkable
Andrew Smolski
Third Coast Pillory: Nativism on the Left – A Realer Smith
Joshua Sperber
Trump in the Age of Identity Politics
Brandy Baker
Jill Stein Sees Russia From Her House
Katheryne Schulz
Report from Santiago de Cuba: Celebrating Fidel’s Rebellious Life
Nelson Valdes
Fidel and the Good People
Norman Solomon
McCarthy’s Smiling Ghost: Democrats Point the Finger at Russia
Renee Parsons
The Snowflake Nation and Trump on Immigration
Margaret Kimberley
Black Fear of Trump
Michael J. Sainato
A Pruitt Running Through It: Trump Kills Nearly Useless EPA With Nomination of Oil Industry Hack
Ron Jacobs
Surviving Hate and Death—The AIDS Crisis in 1980s USA
David Swanson
Virginia’s Constitution Needs Improving
Louis Proyect
Narcos and the Story of Colombia’s Unhappiness
Paul Atwood
War Has Been, is, and Will be the American Way of Life…Unless?
John Wight
Syria and the Bodyguard of Lies
Richard Hardigan
Anti-Semitism Awareness Act: Senate Bill Criminalizes Criticism of Israel
Kathy Kelly
See How We Live
David Macaray
Trump Picks his Secretary of Labor. Ho-Hum.
Howard Lisnoff
Interview with a Political Organizer
Yves Engler
BDS and Anti-Semitism
Adam Parsons
Home Truths About the Climate Emergency
Brian Cloughley
The Decline and Fall of Britain
Eamonn Fingleton
U.S. China Policy: Is Obama Schizoid?
Graham Peebles
Worldwide Air Pollution is Making us Ill
Joseph Natoli
Fake News is Subjective?
Andre Vltchek
Tough-Talking Philippine President Duterte
Binoy Kampmark
Total Surveillance: Snooping in the United Kingdom
Guillermo R. Gil
Vivirse la película: Willful Opposition to the Fiscal Control Board in Puerto Rico
Patrick Bond
South Africa’s Junk Credit Rating was Avoided, But at the Cost of Junk Analysis
Clancy Sigal
Investigate the Protesters! A Trial Balloon Filled With Poison Gas
Pierre Labossiere – Margaret Prescod
Human Rights and Alternative Media Delegation Report on Haiti’s Elections
Charles R. Larson
Review:  Helon Habila’s The Chibok Girls: the Boko Haram Kidnappings and Islamist Militancy in Nigeria
David Yearsley
Brahms and the Tears of Britain’s Oppressed
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail