After much deliberation and discussion, the Supreme Court
has returned a critical strike to the core of women’s rights in the abortion
arena. The court in a 5-4 decision
banned a medical procedure known as a partial-birth abortion or Dilation and
Extraction. This abortion procedure was
performed after the 20th week of pregnancy. While the pro-rights crowd is naturally upset
over the ban, they are horrified over the fact that there are no exceptions to
the ban that would enable a doctor to save the life of a woman if it was
medically necessary to perform the procedure.
Doctors can face up to 2 years in prison if they are
convicted of performing the procedures, which will greatly limit the numbers of
doctors performing the procedures and likely increase the number of states
placing bans of the entire abortion procedure as well. The decision came from a split Supreme Court,
with two of the justices being hand picked by Bush himself. This is a cause of great concern, suggesting
that the Supreme Court has turned into a very conservative place, despite the
lack of support for Bush and many of his ideas and practices on a broader
level. The Supreme Court's involvement
in politics is usually noted, but given the gravity of this decision it is
clear where certain allegiances lie.
Is the Supreme Court really following the wishes of the
majority, do they really have the legal right to determine that a medical
decision can or cannot be performed? The
anti-abortion camps in the GOP are happy following the decision and are busily
looking for more ways to put a damper on the rights of women in regards to
abortions. How will this decision be
regarded when it comes election time, and the Presidential elections come
around? What about the midterm elections
next time they are scheduled?
Many people are left to wonder if the Supreme Court decision
is truly a legal decision, or nothing more than a very carefully selected group
of ultra conservative judge’s who are following Bush’s wishes and desires in
regards to the case. The case was
sitting before a panel of judge’s who seem to thrive off of the acceptance of
Bush, and Bush was noted as being encouraged by the ruling and declaring it as
a victory for his administration.
The court defended its decision by saying that it was doing
nothing more than drawing a line between abortion and infanticide. There is a difference between killing a
child, or an infant, and an abortion.
One of the most notable differences is that a child or infant is not
considered an infant until the first breath of air is taken into the
lungs. An abortion does not allow the
infant to take that first breath of air, therefore, removing the term infant
from their being.
While it is noble that the Supreme Court is looking and
seeking to protect all forms of life, they should also concern themselves with
the lives of the mothers who carry babies, who should not be allowed to
continue to term for medical reasons.
There are numerous women each year who become pregnant who are unable
physically to carry a child to term, and must abort the child, or risk their
own life. What has the Supreme Court
done in order to protect those mothers, or improve their quality of life?
No comments:
Post a Comment