Partial-Birth Abortion
The US Supreme Court has decided to hear a case regarding a 2003 law passed by Congress that would ban partial-birth abortion. Two courts have said the law is unconstitutional because it does not give a clause allowing the procedure if the woman’s health is danger. The proponents of the law argue that there is no need for a women’s health clause because if her health is in danger then you can induce labor and deliver the baby alive, there is no need to kill it. I happen to agree with them on this matter.
For those of you who do not know what partial-birth abortion is, or what it entails, I will give you a brief description. First, partial-birth abortion is formed in the late months of pregnancy, usually in the eighth or ninth month. Labor is induced and the Doctor begins to deliver the baby feet first. When the back of the child’s head is visible the Dr. stops the delivery and punctures the child’s skull. At that point the baby’s brains are basically sucked out by a vacuum and the skull is crushed. Why this is legal, or why people would even perform this abortion is beyond my comprehension. If the child came all of the way out of the birth canal it would be considered a baby and to kill it would be illegal. However, since an inch or so of the baby is still in the birth canal, it is perfectly legal to harm the child. Let me remind you that this child is eight or nine months along, it is perfectly capable of living outside of the mother’s womb on it’s own. Why kill it?
The last time partial-birth abortion came before the Supreme Court is was about a specific state law from Nebraska (the current one is a federal law). The Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it did not have the woman’s health clause. It was a 5-4 decision with Sandra Day O’Conner being the deciding vote for� the majority. It will be interesting to see what happens with the confirmation of Samuel Alito to the bench. He appears to be more of a moderate than Justice Roberts and it is difficult to predict which way his vote will go. Of course, it also depends on the government making a compelling argument that a woman’s health is not an issue in this particular form of abortion. We should see a ruling from the Supreme Court in a few months. It will be interesting to see which way the court goes and whether that will be indicative of what will happen to Roe v. Wade. On a side note, South Dakota is in the process of (or already has) passed several laws that will make abortion illegal unless that woman’s health is in danger. It will no doubt make its way through the court system. Whether the Supreme Court will hear it, I don’t know. I imagine lower courts will rule it unconstitutional based on Roe and possibly on Casey, which established undue burden. But that’s a topic for a different day.