Tomato, Tomahto: The Importance of Language in Politics

A Very New Court: Supreme Court Limits Abortion

The Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that it is a criminal act for doctors to perform a certain type of abortion after the first three months of a pregnancy.

The decision determines what can and can’t go on between doctor and patient; therefore, it sets a precedent that could be applied to other conditions. So regardless of how you feel about abortion, the ruling affects the doctor-patient relationship and gives the government extra power, so it could affect all of us.

Although the decision does not take away women’s right to an abortion, it does narrow the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that secures a woman's right to end a pregnancy before the fetus can live independently.

However, as long as Roe v. Wade stands, a first-trimester abortion is considered a medical matter, not a legislative one: the government is not allowed to interfere with an adult woman’s exercise of her right to an abortion.

But the decision helps to define the new Court, led by John G. Roberts, who said in his confirmation hearings that he was personally against abortion but that he would uphold precedent.

Court upholds Congress’ law

When Congress passed the Prohibit Partial-Birth Abortion Bill in October 2003, there was good reason to think that the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional.

The Court had struck down a similar Nebraska state law in 2000. In that case, the majority of justices took issue with the law’s language -- they ruled that it was unspecific and could have been interpreted as a ban on abortion procedures beyond "partial birth" abortions. Therefore, the law placed "an undue burden" on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy before viability" (Supreme Court Opinion, Breyer, Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000).

For more on that case, click here.

Language Land

In general, the abortion question reveals the qualities of language, as well as the potency of it. Medically, the procedure is called "dilation and extraction," in the press it is typically referred to as "partial birth abortion."

Each camp uses language as a sharp tool to carve public thinking. The terms "pro-life," "pro-choice," "anti-choice," and "pro-abortion" are the most obvious examples of this. Pro-choicers say pro-lifers are "anti-choice," and pro-lifers call pro-choicers "pro-abortion." Of course, life and choice are both valued principles, so each side uses the words "life" and "choice" to further its cause and weaken its opponent.

Because the Supreme Court uses the terms "dilation and extraction," "D&E," and "D&X" (they are used interchangeably) when discussing this issue, and because words are so tactical and manipulative in this debate, the acronym "D&E" will be used here to discuss the procedure in question.

For more on the language of abortion, click here.

Health Matters?

The Supreme Court's second reason for declaring the Nebraska law unconstitutional was concern for women's health. Like the federal law after it, it did not include a health exception. And under the federal law, if a doctor performs D&E, he or she may face criminal prosecution, fines, and up to two years in prison.

The Robert’s Court did not find the health exception to be a problem. Specifically, Justice Kennedy said that it was okay for Congress to omit the health exception because there was "medical uncertainty" over whether the banned procedure was ever necessary for a woman’s health. He said that pregnant women or their doctors could go to court to challenge the law as it applied to them.

Justice Ginsburg said that this reasoning was "gravely mistaken" and that forcing extra litigation "jeopardizes women’s health and places doctors in an untenable position."

Are Women Qualified to Decide? Kennedy vs. Ginsburg

Justice Kennedy argued that banning D&E was, in fact, good for women since they may not fully understand the procedure and may come to regret it later: "It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form."

Justice Ginsburg strongly disagreed, saying that "this way of thinking reflects ancient notions of women’s place in the family and under the Constitution - ideas that have long since been discredited."

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg wrote that the majority came up with "flimsy and transparent justifications" for upholding the law, which she noted "saves not a single fetus from destruction" by banning a single method of abortion.

What do you think?

For you, what is the issue? Is it about pregnancy? About protecting a life? Is it about government telling doctors what to do?

Surely, it’s about us women. Is there a single law that is directed only to men? As grownups and as citizens, WomenMatter asks women to weigh in and tell your representatives what you want them to do --- or not to do. It is now up to the legislatures in Washington D.C. and in your state.

Discuss your views with other WomenMatter readers on our blog.

About WomenMatter

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don't want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter is dedicated to engaging women in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• To explore our archive of past Women's Rights Life Issue updates, click here.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women's lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 4/28/2007