Intellectuelle

Interesting to know what’s going on abroad.

I just read the Supreme Court’s opinion, Gonzales v. Carhart 550 U.S. __ (2007). It’s definitely a victory for the pro-life movement: the Court upheld the validity of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act. Specifically, the Court held that the Act was not unconstitutionally vague and did not impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to a second-trimester abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of an exception for the health of the woman.

For pro-lifers, one of the highlights of the Court’s opinion is its discussion of the government’s interests in protecting the life of the fetus. The Court said, “Where it has a rational basis to act, and it does not impose an undue burden, the State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including life of the unborn.”

But before we get too excited, it’s important to realize that this was only small victory. It is clear that the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act because of the availability of alternative abortion procedures. The Act only banned partial-birth abortions (intact dilation and extraction or intact D&E). Because alternative procedures, including standard D&E, remained available, the Court held that the Act did not unduly burden a woman’s right to a second-term abortion. The Court (at least, three members of the majority and all four members of the dissent) reaffirmed its commitment to upholding a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

The Court continues to be divided on this issue. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined the majority. Justice Scalia wrote separately to reiterate his opposition to a woman’s right to choose as a constitutional right (joined by Justice Thomas). Justice Ginsberg wrote the dissent (joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer), rejecting the constitutionality of the Act on the ground that it infringed upon a woman’s right to choose and failed to provide a health exception. Another close 5-4 decision.

Definitely a step in the right direction.