Reducing abortion access
This morning the Supreme Court upheld the "partial birth" abortion ban passed by Congress in 2003. This is legislation that has been struck down in the past by the Supreme Court due to lack of exemptions for the health of the mother. This time around it seems that same argument didn't hold in light of the new members of the Court.
This is a disappointing in a big way. This is a federal abortion ban, something that hasn't happened since Roe v. Wade struck down earlier bans. Congress has restricted access to abortion a number of ways over the years, chiefly financially and more recently through notification requirements, but had yet to ban the act itself in some key way. There are several cases wending their way through the court system relating to State action in opposition to abortion that now have better prospects than they did yesterday.
That said, the Roe v. Wade decision itself lined out a limit for when abortions could be banned. It affirmed the right to an abortion up to the point of viability. Medical science has pushed the boundary of viability quite a ways back from where it was in 1973. As with so much medical wizardry it is exceedingly expensive, but it can be done. I expect arguments relating to the viability of very premature babies to be used in support of further bans on abortions. Which will lead to pregnant mothers unable to pay for the medical care needed for a 4 month premature baby carrying to term instead, which is what abortion opponents wanted all along.
We're heading into an area of even more mixed access to abortion. Access is already very different, even among 'blue' states. The number of abortion providers in Minnesota is under ten and all in the Twin Cities, yet in Washington State the number of providers is much higher and available outside the Seattle metro area. In some southern states there are also less than five providers. If further restrictions on access are enacted into law it will deepen access differences.
Even blue states are having a hard time maintaining access to abortion. In light of this Supreme Court decision, drives to enact more stringent restrictions will increase. The prospect of being shot down by the Supreme Court now looks less likely. Things such as the outright ban on abortion enacted by South Dakota are still going to get challenged, and likely get overturned, but less extreme measures are another thing entirely.
This is a disappointing in a big way. This is a federal abortion ban, something that hasn't happened since Roe v. Wade struck down earlier bans. Congress has restricted access to abortion a number of ways over the years, chiefly financially and more recently through notification requirements, but had yet to ban the act itself in some key way. There are several cases wending their way through the court system relating to State action in opposition to abortion that now have better prospects than they did yesterday.
That said, the Roe v. Wade decision itself lined out a limit for when abortions could be banned. It affirmed the right to an abortion up to the point of viability. Medical science has pushed the boundary of viability quite a ways back from where it was in 1973. As with so much medical wizardry it is exceedingly expensive, but it can be done. I expect arguments relating to the viability of very premature babies to be used in support of further bans on abortions. Which will lead to pregnant mothers unable to pay for the medical care needed for a 4 month premature baby carrying to term instead, which is what abortion opponents wanted all along.
We're heading into an area of even more mixed access to abortion. Access is already very different, even among 'blue' states. The number of abortion providers in Minnesota is under ten and all in the Twin Cities, yet in Washington State the number of providers is much higher and available outside the Seattle metro area. In some southern states there are also less than five providers. If further restrictions on access are enacted into law it will deepen access differences.
Even blue states are having a hard time maintaining access to abortion. In light of this Supreme Court decision, drives to enact more stringent restrictions will increase. The prospect of being shot down by the Supreme Court now looks less likely. Things such as the outright ban on abortion enacted by South Dakota are still going to get challenged, and likely get overturned, but less extreme measures are another thing entirely.
posted by Corwin at 9:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home