On November 8th the U.S. Supreme Court held a
hearing on the 2003 Federal law banning partial birth abortion (also described as D&X
abortion). Lower courts have declared the law
unconstitutional because it does not provide an exception for health of the mother. These rulings are based on the 2000 Supreme Court
ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart. That ruling rejected the Nebraska law
banning partial birth abortion because it did not provide a health exception.
Abortion
supporters consistently claim that the Federal law “would ban abortions as early as
12 to 15 weeks in pregnancy.” They have
a strategy behind making that unsupported claim. They
are trying to take the focus off the gruesome partial birth abortion procedure by
suggesting that virtually all late-term abortion procedures would be banned. Then they can cite heart-wrenching examples where
women’s health was threatened by a pregnancy to support the need for the missing
health exception that, if provided, would make a ban meaningless.
Articles in the
Chicago Tribune (Nov 6th) and Chicago Sun-Times (Nov 13th) have both made this change in
focus by portraying the ban as a threat to women’s health. These articles carry the water for abortion
supporters by accepting as fact the premise that the law would ban virtually all late-term
abortions, creating this perceived threat. In
contrast, during the November 8th hearing, when Justice Kennedy asked how often the
partial-birth abortion procedure was medically needed, the plaintiff’s attorney
admitted there are no statistics showing that.
Before passing the
2003 law, Congress held hearings where many doctors testified in favor of the
ban. These doctors explained why partial
birth abortion was not only unnecessary to address health issues during pregnancy, but in
fact, is a dangerous procedure that cannot be medically justified under any circumstances. Of course, these doctors were focusing on the
partial birth abortion procedure in their testimony, not other late-term abortion
procedures.
Apparently, the doctors who testified in favor of the ban
did not find the wording of the law difficult to understand regarding what abortion
procedure it would ban. Many legal
experts also reject concerns that this law would ban other abortion procedures. Since the
Federal ban provides even more specifics about the banned procedure than earlier laws,
charges that this ban will prevent any form of abortion after 12-15 weeks is not
supportable as an valid argument.
The final evidence
to dispute this misleading claim will be what really happens when the Supreme Court
upholds the partial birth abortion ban. None of the suggested dire results
threatening women’s health will occur.