Court sets alarming precedent

The U.S. Supreme Court set an alarming precedent yesterday by upholding the Partial-Birth… The U.S. Supreme Court set an alarming precedent yesterday by upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, a federal law that bans the controversial procedure.

The justices ruled 5-4 that the law, which was passed by Congress in 2003, does not violate the Constitution by imposing an undue burden on a woman’s right to end a pregnancy, claiming that there is a medical “consensus” that the banned procedure is never necessary, according to a New York Times report.

Partial-birth abortions, which are known medically as “intact dilation and evacuation,” are controversial procedures that occur in the later stages of a woman’s pregnancy. The procedure involves partially removing an intact fetus and destroying its skull.

While the procedure has upset many anti-abortion advocates, doctors who challenge the law claim that partial-birth abortions are often safer than alternative procedures because they minimize the chances of injury to the uterus, which if damaged can cause a serious risk of infection.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the Court, said that the Partial-Birth Abortion Act would not affect most abortions, which are performed earlier in a pregnancy, and that there are alternative procedures available.

The Court is upholding this legislation on the claim that most abortions are performed in the early stages of pregnancy, an assumption that does very little to protect the rights and health of women who are unaware of pregnancy complications until late in their terms.

While there are alternatives to partial-birth abortions available, there is no current medical consensus that those procedures would be safer. It is concerning that the Court has taken the position of legislating in an area where scientists have yet to come to an agreement, especially when women’s health might be at stake.

This ruling puts doctors in particular in a precarious position – they now must answer to the government when deciding which procedure is most medically beneficial to a woman’s health. The precedent that the Supreme Court has established might pave the way for further government intervention in medical care in the future.

Politicians cannot be expected to be experts on all the fields of the policy they create, but it is important that they take advice of scientific experts very seriously, rather than legislate purely on moral grounds.

Abortion has become such a hot-button political issue in recent years that politicians and activists bent on “preserving the sanctity of human life” – as President Bush recently put it – are beginning to forget that there are women’s lives at stake, too.

Unfortunately, this ruling, which is seen as a great victory for Bush and pro-life activists who hoped the president’s new appointments would regulate abortions, might have paved the way for future reconsideration of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that defended a woman’s right to choose.

And when or if that day ever comes, it will be a sad time for American democracy.