Thomas writes, "Last week, there were two stories about carnage -- the tragedy at Virginia Tech and the Supreme Court's decision" (in Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood). That decision upheld a federal ban of an abortion procedure known as "intact dilation and evacuation." This is the first time in the 34 years since Roe v. Wade that the court declared a ban on an abortion method to be constitutional.
The significance of the decision and Thomas's comparison requires a little background. Under Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court recognized three essential interests: the interest of women to be able to choose abortion, government's interest of protecting fetal life and, finally, the interest of protecting the woman's health.
Early in the pregnancy the woman's right to abortion holds greater weight than the protection of fetal life. Later in pregnancy, the balance shifts so that fetal life holds more prominence than the woman's right to choose. However, the health of the woman remains important throughout the pregnancy and always carries more weight than fetal life. Under Roe, neither state nor federal governments may restrict abortion when the woman's health is jeopardized.
How can this balanced approach even remotely relate to the Tech shootings?
For many years now, abortion foes have sought ways to make fetal life more important than a woman's health. The tactic they have used involves passing bans on intact dilation and evacuation procedures that intentionally lack a health exception. They have even resorted to altering the name of the procedure to "partial-birth abortion."
Until the Gonzalez case, these bans have routinely been declared unconstitutional by the courts. However, in this latest case the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow an abortion ban devoid of a health exception for women.
Because of the ruling, abortion is no longer simply about a woman's right to privacy. It now affects woman's autonomy, her health and her safety. With this decision, the government can decide that the woman's health can be ignored.
Under the federal ban, an abortion performed one way is legal. If performed slightly differently, the physician faces heavy fines and two years in prison. Even a false and unfounded accusation could result in the burden of a costly trial. The ban will have a chilling effect on the number of doctors willing to provide abortions, even when the woman's health is at risk.
Since the early 1990s, many abortion cases have been decided by 5-4 decisions upholding the importance of legal access to abortion. Last year, Sandra Day O'Connor, who always affirmed a woman's right to choose, was replaced by Justice Samuel Alito. Now it appears that many of the 5-4 cases that affirmed a woman's privacy and autonomy may become 5-4 decisions against women.
This Supreme Court can no longer be relied upon to protect women. Neither can President Bush, who appointed Justices Roberts and Alito. However, the new Congress does appear emboldened to support the causes of women. Many of the presidential candidates have also proclaimed their support and affirmation for the well-being and the autonomy of women.
Families must maintain the freedom to decide when and whether to have a child without undue intrusion from state and federal governments. Women, along with their partners, must have the freedom to determine whether they are ready to embrace the awesome responsibility of parenthood. Their choices render no relationship to the actions of Seung-Hui Cho.
Moreover, our society needs to recognize the humanity of women facing difficult decisions and of the physicians who help them.
Comparisons to the Holocaust, concentration camps or to the senseless shootings at Virginia Tech serve only to exploit the victims whose lives have been shattered at the hands of a ferocious government or a disturbed gunman.
Source : www.roanoke.com
No comments:
Post a Comment