Tag: partial birth abortion
The New Abortion Wars, Starting At Six Weeks

The New Abortion Wars, Starting At Six Weeks

In the not-so-old days, the guerrilla battle against Roe v. Wade took the form of state laws that imposed endless obstacles in the face of women seeking to exercise their constitutional rights, from waiting periods to hospitalization requirements to exhaustive credentialing of clinics, not to mention repeated efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.

Time and again, cases went to the Supreme Court. And instead of overturning Roe v. Wade, which might have started a political firestorm, the court founds ways to uphold most of those burdensome requirements. The result was not to deny abortions to middle-class women who have access to pills and private doctors. Forty-three percent of all women of childbearing age in America live in states that have been classified by the Guttmacher Institute as hostile to abortion. Ninety percent of counties in America have no abortion providers. These are the clinics that should serve poor women and rural women and teenage girls. These are the places where clinics are needed the most.

Remember “partial-birth abortion”? Actually, there is no such thing. It is a political term invented by those who were looking for yet another way to limit access to abortions. These “partial-birth abortions” happened to hit the most life-threatening cases hardest.

But that wasn’t good enough. No state allows an “abortion” of a baby who could be saved. Babies born alive are babies.

Now the anti-choice folks have pushed even further. Forget about second- and third term abortions. Four states have now voted to ban abortion at six weeks, when a fetal heartbeat can be detected. And Alabama wants to ban all abortions, having removed the possible exceptions for rape and incest on Thursday, with sentences of up to 99 years for doctors who perform abortions in the absence of “serious” risk to the mother.

Need I point out that most women don’t know they are even pregnant until eight weeks? If we do, we don’t even tell friends and family, because the danger of miscarriage is so high. Look to your left, and look to your right, and you will find a woman who has had a miscarriage. Our doctors reassure us. Who is the Alabama Supreme Court to tell us otherwise?

The argument these states have concocted is that “viability” — which provided scientific support for the constitutional approach taken in Roe — has advanced since that decision.

It has not advanced to six weeks.

They are taking another run at Roe. They have been taking these runs since I was a teenager.

A new round of lawsuits has been filed. A new round of arguments will be held. Once again, years of time and energy will be devoted to fighting for rights that are guaranteed to us under the Constitution.

It’s a game being played with women’s lives.

IMAGE: Abortion rights supporters demonstrate in front of the U.S. Supreme Court during the National March for Life rally in Washington January 22, 2016. REUTERS/Gary Cameron 

Chuck Grassley Reveals The Real Reason He Won’t Give Merrick Garland A Hearing

Chuck Grassley Reveals The Real Reason He Won’t Give Merrick Garland A Hearing

In more transparently anti-choice posturing, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley told supporters that his opposition to abortion is the real reason he won’t consider new Supreme Court nominees before the next president is in office.

Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman and an avowed foe of abortion rights, has stubbornly refused to give President Obama’s Supreme Court pick, Merrick Garland, a full hearing to ascertain his qualifications for the role.

“I can’t overstate the importance of what’s at stake here,” he said in a conference call with the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. “We know if another liberal is nominated to the court then even the reasonable restrictions on abortion that have been enacted into law — through the democratic process, I might say — these would be swept away.”

One case Grassley referred to on the call, Gonzales v. Carhart, upheld a Congressional ban on partial-birth abortions. John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas joined Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer dissenting. David Souter retired in 2009 and Stevens in 2010; they both were nominated by Republican presidents, Souter by George H.W. Bush in 1990 and Stevens by Gerald Ford in 1975.

Contraception and access to women’s health care — including abortion — have been the subject of major political and legal debate recently, and are expected to be on the Court’s docket next year, including notably the question of whether Texas’ new laws create an “undue burden” for women seeking abortions in the state, a question that the Court’s female justices seem to have have already addressed in oral arguments.

Grassley didn’t stop there, though. He also accused the media of distorting the judicial records of Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan, and by insinuation, Garland, referring to “headlines at the time they were nominated” that depicted the judges as moderates.

“Well, we know how those four have turned out. So don’t believe what you read in the press about people’s basic philosophy, because they got it all wrong and probably intentionally all wrong.”

Photo: Chuck Grassley, anti-abortion foe, which means he won’t give Merrick Garland a fair hearing. REUTERS/Gary Cameron