Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Editorial: Chief Justice Roberts' delayed litmus test
During his Senate confirmation hearing, John Roberts sidestepped the abortion litmus test. The chief justice begins that exam today.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
The U.S. Supreme Court today will hear arguments on the Partial-Birth Abortion Act that is a case of déjà vu all over again. The court in 2000 ruled that the state of Nebraska could not ban an abortion procedure without carving out exceptions for a woman's life and health -- no matter how appalling lawmakers believe the practice may be.
The case today is essentially the same with two exceptions:
n It was Congress in 2003, not a state legislature, asserting that it -- not the Supreme Court and certainly not medical doctors -- should be the definitive voice in deciding how a pregnancy cannot end. It enacted a federal ban without the health exception.
n The composition of the Supreme Court changed last year with the appointment of two conservatives.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito lend hope to anti-abortionists that activist judges will align in their favor and overturn court precedents.
That the Supreme Court did not refuse to hear this case -- lower courts have already ruled it unconstitutional based on the 2000 decision -- lends credence to the concern that political agendas may trump the health of a woman and the judgment of her physician.
The medical procedure known as dilation and extraction, or D&X, does indeed evoke strong emotional responses. The fetus is removed intact from the uterus in the middle months of a pregnancy. Even though it is rarely performed, doctors think it is safer for women who are prone to infections or hemorrhaging than the other more common procedure that breaks apart the fetus before removing it from the uterus.
Still, fewer than 2 percent of abortions occur after the 20th week of pregnancy, and it makes little sense to ban one type of procedure, especially if it is safer for a woman.
But then logic is not at the crux of this case; emotion is. Those who wish to chip away at a woman's right to make her own health decisions find that a partial-birth abortion ban gives them an inroad to going after what they truly desire: to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
Roberts testified during his Senate confirmation hearing that he considered Roe "settled as a precedent of the court," and further offered that "there's nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources" that would prevent him from adhering to the principles of the decision. The results of Roberts' litmus test soon will become evident.
