Abortion returns to forefront
The Supreme Court will decide a case on the ban of partial-birth abortion.
Published Feb. 24, 2006
Abortion measures at the state and federal level will soon come before the U.S. Supreme Court, testing the Roe v. Wade decision and revealing how President George Bush's appointments might have changed the balance of the court.
The court decided this week to take a case that would determine whether the ban on partial-birth abortion that Bush signed in 2003 is unconstitutional.
"It would not be a bad assumption to say that the two new justices will affect how the court will rule on this," said Pamela Sumners, executive director of NARAL Pro-choice Missouri.
Patty Skain, executive director of Missouri Right to Life, an abortion-rights opposition group, said her organization remains cautiously optimistic about the case.
"Of course we're optimistic that the ban will be upheld, but we don't know much about how the two new judges will rule, especially Chief Justice Roberts," Skain said. "We've always been against partial-birth abortion, because it's not an abortion, it's infanticide. We don't feel Roe v. Wade should apply to it, and we hope we have the votes to uphold the ban."
Sumners said she took issue with the way the Supreme Court decided to take the case. She said the court usually waits for two lower courts to reach conflicting decisions before it decides to take on a case.
"What the court did here was say to the Justice Department that they would take the case without that conflict," Sumners said. "This appears to be an act of judicial activism, taking a case up before conflicts in the appeals courts. Every court before this has decided this act is unconstitutional because it could outlaw abortions up to 12 weeks after conception, and there's no exception for the health of the mother."
On the state level, South Dakota's Senate passed legislation this week that would, with few exceptions, ban all abortions in the state. South Dakota Rep. Roger Hunt, R- Brandon, said details held up a similar bill two years ago.
"The bill two years ago was vetoed on a style and form veto because the governor thought that if the bill was signed, it might inadvertently repeal some pro-life legislation," Hunt said. "So, he asked that the House and Senate make changes and return it to him. The House made the changes, but the Senate failed to."
The South Dakota Senate amended the bill, so it must return to the House of Representatives for final passage before heading to the governor for approval.
"We expect the governor to sign it, but until he signs it we don't know for sure," Hunt said.
Hunt said if the bill goes all the way to the Supreme Court, the legal fight could take two to three years.
He said donors have given money to a litigation fund to help defray the costs the state would incur by defending the bill.
Sumners said she thinks Bush's Supreme Court appointments led to the South Dakota legislators' actions.
"It's quite an in-your-face (act)," she said. "The legislator who sponsored this bill said they wanted to make a run at Roe v. Wade, and they wanted to make a run at it because of the two new justices."