Partial-birth abortion ruling could lead to more restrictions
Supreme Court decision emboldens states to adopt new requirements


By MICHAEL DOYLE
McClatchy-Tribune

SOME ABORTION CASES TO WATCH
Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota v. Rounds
• Location: 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in St. Louis.
• Issue: Does South Dakota's strict informed-consent law place an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion? The 2005 law requires that physicians tell women that abortion will "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being," among other things.

Northland Family v. Cox
• Location: 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati.
• Issue: Does Michigan's "Legal Birth Definition Act" go too far beyond the kind of abortion ban that the Supreme Court recently upheld? Michigan's law prohibits abortions in which "any portion" of a whole fetus has exited the woman's body.

WASHINGTON — Every Supreme Court opinion has an afterlife, especially when it comes to abortion.

A closely watched decision last month upholding a federal ban on so-called partial-birth abortions is just starting to populate the legal landscape. It will take years for the Gonzales v. Carhart consequences to be fully revealed, but some implications are coming into focus.

States can try out new pre-abortion requirements, including anti-abortion messages to pregnant women. Some specific techniques might be targeted. New kinds of hurdles may be erected. As long as they can't be considered an "undue burden" on many women, the rules might survive.

Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to bless many such efforts in his 39-page majority opinion in Carhart, which was issued April 18.

"The state's interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion," Kennedy wrote.


Shaping dialogue's content
In other words: The court will look kindly on states that require a "dialogue" about abortion with pregnant women. Shaping the content of that dialogue will be one goal of anti-abortion advocates.

"I think that this means that a vast array of regulations are likely to be upheld," Duke Law School professor Erwin Chemerinsky predicted. "Certainly this will embolden states to adopt more laws regulating abortions."

"The court has indicated pretty strongly that a state's interest in protecting a pending life is in ascending status," said Janet Crepps, acting director of the domestic legal program for the Center for Reproductive Rights.

A woman's right to abortion will remain intact. At present, Chemerinsky said, it's likely that "there are not five votes to overrule" the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which found abortion rights rooted in constitutional guarantees of privacy.


Following the lead
The Carhart consequences could be more subtle.

For instance, more states might follow South Carolina's lead in considering requirements that pregnant women view fetal ultrasounds before deciding to abort. Missouri already is considering the idea.

More states could build on Nevada's and Wisconsin's lead in mandating pre-abortion counseling about possible adverse psychological effects, but with even more pointed language. New kinds of mandatory waiting periods might be tried, beyond the 18- to 24-hour wait that some two dozen states now require.

Still other tactics might arise. For instance, a state could try to require women to listen to the fetal heartbeats before proceeding with abortions.

There's no guarantee that such new tactics would survive legal challenges, but their prospects appear brighter now.

"I think we're going to see a lot of bills going back to mandated delays and biased counseling," Crepps predicted. "I suspect that within the next year, we'll see a landslide."

Looks like free choice for women is slowly being stripped away if these measure's pass. I think unfortunately that Roe vs Wade will be turned over in my lifetime.

I'm both happy and sad about this-I think women deserve the right to choose to abort within the first trimester(unless medically necessary later) but I also think way too many women do not know what they are getting into when they have an abortion-it's a quick fix to them.

Even though I am not for abortion what-so-ever, ESPECIALLY partial birth abortions, I don't think that trickery is the answer. Making the women look and listen to ultrasounds isn't going to make a lot of women change their minds. And if it does, it might be for the wrong reasons.

If our country was just EDUCATED better that might solve a lot of problems...

I'm both happy and sad about this-I think women deserve the right to choose to abort within the first trimester(unless medically necessary later) but I also think way too many women do not know what they are getting into when they have an abortion-it's a quick fix to them.

i've got to agree with you. women definately deserve the right to choose but abortion is used as a quick fix too often.

Well its sad but expected, I am completely pro-choice and by approving the first law it just opened the door to start stripping women of other choices in their life. pretty soon women won't be able to have any choices when it comes to their own pregnancy because the gov't thinks IT knows what's best for us.

Even though I am not for abortion what-so-ever, ESPECIALLY partial birth abortions, I don't think that trickery is the answer. Making the women look and listen to ultrasounds isn't going to make a lot of women change their minds. And if it does, it might be for the wrong reasons.

If our country was just EDUCATED better that might solve a lot of problems...

:yes

Well its sad but expected, I am completely pro-choice and by approving the first law it just opened the door to start stripping women of other choices in their life. pretty soon women won't be able to have any choices when it comes to their own pregnancy because the gov't thinks IT knows what's best for us.

I agree completely we are going backwards as far as pro-choice goes.

I'm both happy and sad about this-I think women deserve the right to choose to abort within the first trimester(unless medically necessary later) but I also think way too many women do not know what they are getting into when they have an abortion-it's a quick fix to them.

I completly agree with you.

I totally agree that education is the answer. Not sneakily reversing Roe v. Wade. I don't agree that "too many" women have abortions as a quick fix though. I don't know where that perception comes from. That has not at ALL been my experience with people I have known who have had abortions, or people I have seen in the media who have had them. It just seems like an argument used against abortion because people are afraid that women will use abortion that way, not because there is any evidence that a significant amount of women actually do. There is that mythical welfare woman who goes in and has abortions over and over again instead of using birth control or taking any responsibility for her actions. I have NEVER met anyone like that, much less "too many" women like that.

I am pro choice but anti partial birth, I know that sounds contradictory to many people but when a child is developed enough to survive outside the womb it should not be brutally murdered but put up for adoption, the mother obviously waited that long to do something about it, just allow the child a chance to survive with someone else. I feel it is a different case, however, if a child could not have a chance of surviving if delivered at that moment, and it should be the mothers choice until the child would be able to survive without the mother.

People keep forgetting that abortions are going to happen regardless if it's legal or not. It will just be unsanitary and more of a deadly risk. Desperate women will do it regardless.

I am pro choice but anti partial birth, I know that sounds contradictory to many people but when a child is developed enough to survive outside the womb it should not be brutally murdered but put up for adoption, the mother obviously waited that long to do something about it, just allow the child a chance to survive with someone else. I feel it is a different case, however, if a child could not have a chance of surviving if delivered at that moment, and it should be the mothers choice until the child would be able to survive without the mother.

AFAIK people do not get a D&X abortion as a way to end an unwanted pregnancy (there is no such thing as a partial birth abortion it is a made up term by politicians) it is used in cases where there is something drastically wrong with the baby. (I don't mean downs or something like that)

Also in the D&X ban there is nothing in it that will allow for it to be used in order to save the mother's life. The ban is purposefully written to be vague, the more cases that reach the supreme court and are lost the closer we are to losing free choice for our bodies.

I do not like abortion BUT I do not want women to lose ground when it comes to reproductive choice. I also think more life will be lost if RvW is over turned then with it legal.

AFAIK people do not get a D&X abortion as a way to end an unwanted pregnancy (there is no such thing as a partial birth abortion it is a made up term by politicians) it is used in cases where there is something drastically wrong with the baby. (I don't mean downs or something like that)

Also in the D&X ban there is nothing in it that will allow for it to be used in order to save the mother's life. The ban is purposefully written to be vague, the more cases that reach the supreme court and are lost the closer we are to losing free choice for our bodies.

I do not like abortion BUT I do not want women to lose ground when it comes to reproductive choice. I also think more life will be lost if RvW is over turned then with it legal.

100% :agree