Wasting No Time: The Bush Administration Works to Ban Late-Term Abortions

As we know, abortion is a hotly contested issue that rouses passion on both sides of the dispute. In late September 2005, Bush administration lawyers filed an appeal with the Supreme Court to ban late-term abortions, stoking the flames of the debate.

The timing of the request coincided with the nomination of John G. Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And Harriet Miers, President Bush’s choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, may be on the bench by the time the Court hears the case.

Although the Supreme Court decided to protect late-term abortions just five years ago, the two new justices may lead the Court to a different conclusion.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was the deciding vote in the 2000 case; she resolved that the government may not regulate abortion in a way that endangers women’s health.

Language matters

The abortion debate is a clash of deep-rooted personal philosophies that are reflected by the use of language. Both "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are terms that invoke positive values in order to influence the debate. Similarly, the term "partial-birth abortion" is a strategic maneuver by those who oppose abortion -- the words themselves appall the listener or reader. It is difficult to utter the phrase, "I support partial-birth abortion," because the term is, itself, shocking.

Pro-choice groups criticize the term as inexact and misleading. Although attempting to ban a medical procedure, critics say anti-abortion activists are using a term that the medical community does not use itself.

Because doctors use the terms "dilation and extraction" or, "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&X" will be used here to discuss the procedure in question.

Why will the Supreme Court consider D&X again?

Despite the 2000 Supreme Court decision to allow D&X, Congress passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, making it a federal crime to perform the procedure.

In 2005, the U.S. District Court in Omaha and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in Saint Louis blocked the federal law, reiterating the Supreme Court decision that medical testimony indicated that D&X is sometimes necessary to protect a woman’s health.

The Bush administration appeal challenges this decision, saying that the lower courts should have deferred to lawmakers in Washington instead of doctors who testified in the case.

The question of women’s health

The 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does not include a health exception. This means that a doctor cannot use the D&X method when a woman’s health is at risk, even if the doctor believes that D&X is the safest procedure.

The federal ban was the first time that Congress has ever banned a medical procedure. Under this law, doctors can go to jail for performing D&X.

The law’s opponents say that when Congress tells doctors what they can and cannot do, government is intruding upon the doctor/patient relationship. If D&X is banned, they say, women may suffer severe health consequences, including uterine rupture, stroke, paralysis, and/or infertility.

Defining "necessary"

The ban’s supporters claim that D&X is never necessary. Ironically, the law does permit the procedure if a woman’s life is in danger.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is opposed to the federal ban, but some doctors disagree on the necessity of the procedure. Some feel that D&X is not needed to perform late-term abortions. Abortion rights advocates say that this disagreement proves that the decision should be left up to doctors.

The ban’s advocates claim that a health exception would invalidate the law altogether since "health" can be regarded as mental, emotional, or physical. Since possible health risks are broad and varied, the health exception may amount to a loophole that allows doctors to perform D&X without regulation.

Policy and philosophy

Those in favor of a federal ban believe that birth begins at conception and that fetuses should be protected like any other U.S. citizen. They find the various medical procedures performed during an abortion to be inhumane.

Those against a federal ban are also worried about human rights. They feel that the 2003 law is an attempt to chip away at a woman’s right to choose, a right that will eventually crumble if this type of legislation continues to fly through Congress.

At play are competing philosophies about rights - women’s rights, reproductive rights, doctors’ rights, fetal rights, and court’s rights.

To determine your philosophy of the issue, consider these questions: How much power should a woman have over her own reproduction? Should doctors or legislators decide the correctness of medical procedures? As technology makes it possible for younger fetuses to survive without the mother, should our laws change? What role should the courts play in the abortion discussion?

What do you think?

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. To participate in our blog, click here.

WomenMatter encourages women to educate themselves on the issues and then approach their representatives with ideas.

Your voice is vital. Make sure your leaders know what’s important to you. To see how your representatives vote and to contact them, click here.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate 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 launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• 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.
• We provide partnerships with nonpartisan organizations that provide services to women and advocate for them.

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: 10/6/2005