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:
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
Stavros Mavroudeas
Blatant Hypocrisy: the Latest Late-Night Bailout of Greece
Arun Gupta
A War of All Against All
Dan Kovalik
NPR, Yemen & the Downplaying of U.S. War Crimes
Randy Blazak
Thugs, Bullies, and Donald J. Trump: The Perils of Wounded Masculinity
Murray Dobbin
Are We Witnessing the Beginning of the End of Globalization?
Daniel Falcone
Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, an Interview with David Hilfiker
Gloria Jimenez
In Honduras, USAID Was in Bed with Berta Cáceres’ Accused Killers
Kent Paterson
The Old Braceros Fight On
Lawrence Reichard
The Seemingly Endless Indignities of Air Travel: Report from the Losing Side of Class Warfare
Peter Berllios
Bernie and Utopia
Stan Cox – Paul Cox
Indonesia’s Unnatural Mud Disaster Turns Ten
Linda Pentz Gunter
Obama in Hiroshima: Time to Say “Sorry” and “Ban the Bomb”
George Souvlis
How the West Came to Rule: an Interview with Alexander Anievas
Julian Vigo
The Government and Your i-Phone: the Latest Threat to Privacy
Stratos Ramoglou
Why the Greek Economic Crisis Won’t be Ending Anytime Soon
David Price
The 2016 Tour of California: Notes on a Big Pharma Bike Race
Dmitry Mickiewicz
Barbarous Deforestation in Western Ukraine
Rev. William Alberts
The United Methodist Church Up to Its Old Trick: Kicking the Can of Real Inclusion Down the Road
Patrick Bond
Imperialism’s Junior Partners
Mark Hand
The Trouble with Fracking Fiction
Priti Gulati Cox
Broken Green: Two Years of Modi
Marc Levy
Sitrep: Hometown Unwelcomes Vietnam Vets
Lorenzo Raymond
Why Nonviolent Civil Resistance Doesn’t Work (Unless You Have Lots of Bombs)
Ed Kemmick
New Book Full of Amazing Montana Women
Michael Dickinson
Bye Bye Legal High in Backwards Britain
Missy Comley Beattie
Wanted: Daddy or Mommy in Chief
Ed Meek
The Republic of Fear
Charles R. Larson
Russian Women, Then and Now
David Yearsley
Elgar’s Hegemony: the Pomp of Empire
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail