APRIL 22, 2007: SUPREME COURT IS THE PARTIAL-BUSH ELECTION BAND

Once again our Supreme Court has thrown all caution and logical reasoning to the wind in favor of pursuing their partisan political and religious ends. Now, not only have the judges decided to "legislate from the bench", they are now trying to "medicate from the bench", practicing medicine without a license, or any sense at all. The latest travesty is their support of the "Handcuff Doctors and Threaten Women's Health Law", also known as the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban" law. Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, this ban does not outlaw late-term abortions. Late-term (third-trimester) abortions are already outlawed by Roe vs. Wade. The procedure's definition under the new federal law does not even mention the term of the fetus at all; nor is this procedure limited to any particular trimester (though reportedly it is used most often in the second trimester).

In fact, the same fetus which can't be aborted by this procedure (less excitingly referred to as an "intact dilation and extraction") can (at least for now) be legally aborted by an alternative procedure (referred to as "standard dilation and evacuation"). The ban doesn't change the outcome for that fetus in any way whatsoever. The only thing it changes is that a woman getting a legal abortion can no longer choose the safest procedure for her situation. The Republican Congress insisted that there should be no exception to the ban for the pregnant woman's health.

Apparently, the only difference between the illegal and legal procedures is whether the abortion is performed mostly inside or outside of the woman's body. It is now illegal for a doctor to extract most of the fetus from the pregnant woman's body before it is aborted, rather than aborting it within the pregnant woman's body. Apparently, by calling it a "partial-birth", the ban proponents have succeeded in making the description of the process cross a line of repulsion for many people. Of course, this is their stepwise goal. To continue the process towards banning all abortions, they will likely next try and pass a "Pre-Birth Dismemberment Ban". By "educating" people with grotesque language, so that they are repulsed by abortions, they expect to succeed in gaining political and legislative support for a total ban on abortions. It's the natural literary extension of their approach to carrying signs in front of abortion clinics with photos of embryos to "humanize" the fetus. In this case, a word ("partial-birth abortion") is worth a thousand pictures.

I respect the rights of abortion opponents to attempt to educate people and legislators to their concerns and points of view regarding abortion. Many of them believe all abortions are immoral and disgusting, and of course get more immoral and disgusting the further along the pregnancy is. The entire country basically agrees with this perspective at some point- the bright red line being the third trimester. How far back to set that line is the essence of the debate. Some people set it back to the first trimester; some would set it back to the moment of conception; some would ban birth control and set it back even before conception.

If a state's elected officials decided to move that red line, or even outlaw abortion outright, I could even, at least logically, understand the Supreme Court upholding that state's right, and reversing Roe vs. Wade. Presumably the state's law would reflect the desires of the majority of their citizenry. I don't agree with that approach, as I support the federal pro-choice stance in Roe vs. Wade; but I can at least see the logic in it.

But, in this case, the Supreme Court has totally ignored their role in evaluating the Constitutionality of the federal "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban" in eliminating the availability of a health exception to allow the procedure when it is deemed safest for the pregnant woman. Let's make this clear: the Supreme Court didn't just approve the a law banning a procedure; they approved banning a medical procedure EVEN WHEN A LICENSED, TRAINED, CERTIFIED, RESPONSIBLE DOCTOR DECIDES THAT IT IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY. That was the entire crux of the case, for both sides! The Supreme Court decided, in their infinite wisdom and knowledge of medical matters, that the procedure is never medically necessary, contrary to the statements of doctor's groups, including gynecologists. In states where such exceptions were allowed, the lists of possible health risks that are avoided by this procedure include severe blood loss, damage to vital organs and loss of fertility. Court briefs noted pregnant women having the procedure tend to be those who have their health threatened by cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure or risk of stroke. Doctors have previously been given the discretion to recommend when the procedure should be performed.

But, when it comes to paying attention to matters of the law, and the Constitution, and logic, and even morality, the Bush court has proven again and again that they will ignore it all if it meets their partisan ends. That's why we have an activist right-wing Court deciding Presidential elections, turning a blind eye to torture, allowing a president to indefinitely suspend all legal rights of detainees at his whim, and now making medical decisions. And I fear this is just the beginning.

 

 

powered by doteasy.com