Several newspapers recently published editorials and opinion pieces about the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling on Wednesday to reinstate a federal law banning so-called "partial-birth" abortion, overturning the rulings of three appeals courts. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia joined Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion and Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the dissent. President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S 3) into law in November 2003. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the National Abortion Federation, and the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of four abortion providers filed lawsuits alleging that the law is unconstitutional because of the absence of an exception for procedures preformed to protect the health of the pregnant woman. In place of a health exception, the law includes a long "findings" section with medical evidence presented during congressional hearings that, according to supporters of the law, indicates the procedures banned by the law are never medically necessary. The law says a physician who performs the banned procedures could face criminal prosecution, fines and up to two years in jail. The law allows an exception for cases in which the life of the woman is in danger, but it does not permit doctors to use the procedure because they believe using another method would increase risks to the woman’s health. Federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York each issued temporary restraining orders to prevent enforcement of the ban, and appellate court panels upheld the rulings (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 4/19). Summaries appear below.
Editorials
* Albany Times-Union: The Supreme Court has "made an assertion that few lawmakers are qualified to make, that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary," a Times-Union editorial says. "The determination of a majority of the court to go to considerable lengths to restrict the legality and availability of abortion is clear enough," the editorial says, adding that political and judicial "bodies should not be making medical judgments" (Albany Times-Union, 4/19).
* Boston Globe: Lawmakers who passed the 2003 partial-birth abortion ban and the five justice majority that upheld the law "have overruled the best judgment of the doctors who are most informed on this issue," a Globe editorial says. The Globe added, "Politics could trump medicine again — unless backers of abortion rights use the ballot box to steer the country back toward support of a woman’s right" to choose (Boston Globe, 4/19).
* Boston Herald: All "but the most pro-choice zealots can live with" the ruling, a Herald editorial says, adding that politicians "who will attempt to leverage" the ruling for "political gain" will "do so at an enormous risk to their credibility." According to the Herald, there is "near universal agreement" that the procedures banned by the law are "abhorrent" (Boston Herald, 4/19).
* Chicago Tribune: Congress could have "accommodated the legitimate interests" of both sides of the debate on partial-birth abortion if it had specified that the procedures "should be used only when it is essential to prevent serious harm" to the pregnant woman, a Tribune editorial says. "Congress and the court have taken the view that a ban on partial-birth abortion won’t make women less safe," the Tribune says, concluding, "Even critics of this decision will be hoping they’re right" (Chicago Tribune, 4/19).
* Denver Post: Although the ruling does "not signify the imminent reversal of Roe," there is a "broader concern about how the court’s new activist majority is lining up," a Post editorial says, concluding that it is "essential that this court remain true to the important rights confirmed by its predecessors" (Denver Post, 4/19).
* Detroit Free Press: The "immediate effect" of the court’s decision might be a "small erosion of abortion rights," a Free Press editorial says. However, the ruling could "inspire" legislators who oppose abortion rights to "be more aggressive" in their future efforts to restrict the procedure and "make it more difficult for abortion-rights groups to rebuff their advances," according to the editorial (Detroit Free Press, 4/19).
* Long Island Newsday: The court’s ruling is "unconscionable" and "troubling," and it allows Congress to "play doctor" in "negotiating the challenging ethical terrain of late-term abortions," a Newsday editorial says. Although the court "left the door open a crack" that allows for challenges to the ban on a case-by-case basis, that is "cold comfort for a woman in immediate peril or for doctors who risk going to prison for doing what’s safest for their patients," the editorial concludes (Long Island Newsday, 4/19).
* Los Angeles Times: The court made an "unconscionable U-turn on abortion, upholding a restrictive federal law that is virtually indistinguishable from a Nebraska statute it struck down only seven years ago," a Times editorial says. Although the "muddled" decision will have no effect on the "vast majority of abortions" performed in the U.S., the ruling represents a "retreat" from precedent that can only be explained by changes to the court’s membership, the editorial concludes (Los Angeles Times, 4/19).
* New York Daily News: The ruling, which is "more an expression of moral revulsion than a respectful parsing of precedents," has made "less absolute a woman’s right to choose," a Daily News editorial says. Roberts and Alito "demonstrated a willingness to depart from precedent where it suits them," which is "not how you want the Supreme Court to conduct business," the editorial says, adding, however, the "majority did at least reach a position on abortion that most Americans will likely support" (New York Daily News, 4/18).
* New York Times: The "atrocious" ruling "gutted a host of thoughtful lower court rulings" and Supreme Court precedent, as well as "severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth," a Times editorial says. According to the Times, the court has handed the Bush administration and other abortion-rights opponents a "big political victory" at a "real cost to the court’s credibility, its integrity and the rule of law" (New York Times, 4/19).
* San Jose Mercury News: The majority of the Supreme Court is "willing … to put women’s lives in jeopardy in the midst of an already horrific set of circumstances," a Mercury News editorial says, adding that the decision will "pav[e] the way for abortion opponents to seek bans on other procedures." The Mercury News says that voters "must elect leaders who will overthrow this law and respect American women’s right to choose" (San Jose Mercury News, 4/19).
* San Francisco Chronicle: Although the court’s decision is "not a surprise, given the conservative composition of the court," that "does not make it any less of an outrage," a Chronicle editorial says. "Buried beneath all of this noise" surrounding the abortion debate are the "millions of American women who have been faced with one of the most difficult decisions of their lives and the doctors who should be free to provide them with the safe, private care that their experience and judgment has shown to be best," the editorial concludes (San Francisco Chronicle, 4/19).
* Seattle Post-Intelligencer: The court’s ruling appears to support "several misguided notions," including that "abortions are lifestyle choices," that legislators "know better than doctors and individuals" about the procedure and that partial-birth abortion "doesn’t exist out of medical necessity but out of some cruel need to abort a fetus in the most savage way possible," a Post-Intelligencer editorial says. The editorial adds that the law "robs an individual of the right to make an autonomous choice" and prevents physicians from providing "the best possible care for their patients" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 4/18).
* USA Today: By upholding a ban on partial-birth abortion, the Supreme Court "reached deeply into women’s lives and took away one medical option they have had to deal with such a wrenching decision" as terminating a pregnancy, a USA Today editorial says. The editorial adds that the ruling "takes the court in a troubling new direction, one that will harm some women or limit their ability to deal with a profoundly personal decision" (USA Today, 4/19).
* Wall Street Journal: The Supreme Court’s decision "has shown a very modest new deference to the will of the voters on abortion, but no more," a Journal editorial says. According to the Journal, the ruling sends the debate back to the states, which "is all to the good" because "the best place to settle abortion disputes is in state legislatures, where a political consensus that better reflects public opinion can be struck" (Wall Street Journal, 4/19).
* Washington Post: The court’s decision is not "apt to prevent any abortions," a Post editorial says, adding it is more likely that the "tiny percentage of women who would have undergone this admittedly gruesome procedure will instead opt to terminate their pregnancies by another procedure, equally, if not more, gruesome" (Washington Post, 4/19).
* Washington Times: The ruling is a "victory for commonsense morality and for constitutional jurisprudence" and "is proof that under the Roberts court, careful abortion restrictions can begin to shift the law from the abortion-on-demand regime enacted in 1973 to one that better reflects public opinion and morals," a Times editorial says. The editorial added that by enacting the law, Congress enacted "the will of the people previously frustrated by the courts" and advocacy groups (Washington Times, 4/19).
Opinion Pieces
* Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe: "How many times must it be said that those who support a woman’s right to decide want abortion to be safe, legal and rare?" Globe columnist Goodman writes in an opinion piece. Goodman adds that with the Supreme Court decision, "women whose pregnancies come with alarming words and dangerous diagnoses live in a world that is a little less legal and a lot less safe" (Goodman, Boston Globe, 4/20).
* Judy Climer, Detroit Free Press: The ruling bans a "cruel and gruesome procedure" and is a "monumental victory for the protection of defenseless human life," Climer, president of Flint Area Right to Life and Genesee County Black Americans for Life, writes in a Free Press letter to the editor (Climer, Detroit Free Press, 4/20).
* Cass Sunstein, Los Angeles Times: Ginsburg in her dissenting opinion "offered the most powerful understanding of the foundations of the right to choose," Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School writes in a Times opinion piece. According to Sunstein, it is "important to remember that today’s dissenting opinion often becomes tomorrow’s majority" (Sunstein, Los Angeles Times, 4/20).
* Joan Malin, New York Times: The court’s decision is a "stunning assault on women’s health and rights," Malin, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of New York City, writes in a Times letter to the editor. She adds, "Americans should be outraged that the Supreme Court turned women’s health concerns over to politicians, as they inserted themselves into our most private medical decisions" (Malin, New York Times, 4/20).
* Deborah Oyer, New York Times: The court’s decision "insidiously injects government into the personal decisions a woman makes with her physician," Oyer, a board member of the National Abortion Federation, writes in a Times letter to the editor. She adds that the decision is an "insult to a woman’s right to protect her own health and to a physician’s ability to advise her" (Oyer, New York Times, 4/20).
* Edward Whelan, USA Today: The ruling offers "some hope" that the "radical regime of unrestricted abortion" the court "impose[d]" in the Roe decision, Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. According to Whelan, the five justices in the majority "exercised judicial restraint and properly deferred to the democratic process" (Whelan, USA Today, 4/19).
Broadcast Coverage
* CBS’s "Evening News": The "Evening News" on Thursday reported on reaction to the ruling from abortion-rights supporters and opponents. The segment includes comments from Nancy Northup, president of CRR, and Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (Andrews, "Evening News," CBS, 4/19). Video of the segment is available online.
* NBC’s "Nightly News": The "Nightly News" on Thursday reported on reaction at the state level. The segment includes comments from Missouri state Rep. Cynthia Davis (R); Kelli Conlin of NARAL Pro-Choice America; and Leslie Rottenberg, director of an abortion clinic (Fratangelo, "Nightly News," NBC, 4/19). Video of the segment is available online.
* KCRW’s "To the Point": The program on Friday is scheduled to include a discussion about the ruling, among other topics ("To the Point," KCRW, 4/20). Additional information about the segment available online. Audio of recent broadcasts are available online.
* NPR’s "All Things Considered": "All Things Considered" on Thursday reported on reaction from physicians. The segment includes comments from Deborah Oyer, director of a Seattle abortion clinic; Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee; and Nancy Stanwood, an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Rochester (Rovner, "All Things Considered," NPR, 4/19). Audio and a partial transcript of the segment are available online.
* NPR’s "Day to Day": "Day to Day" on Thursday reported on reaction from presidential candidates. The segment includes comments from Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention; Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America; and Bill Galston, a domestic policy official during the Clinton administration (Liasson, "Day to Day," NPR, 4/19). Audio of the segment is available online. The program also included a discussion with Karen Lifford, director of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, about abortion methods (Brand, "Day to Day," NPR, 4/19). Audio of the segment is available online.
* NPR’s "News & Notes": The program on Thursday included a roundtable discussion about the ruling, among other topics. Panelists included Walter Fields, a political consultant; Ron Christie, vice president of D.C. Navigators; and Julianne Malveaux, president of Last Word Productions (Chideya, "News & Notes," NPR, 4/19). Audio of the segment is available online.
* PBS’ "Washington Week": The program on Friday is scheduled to include a discussion with Linda Greenhouse, a Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times (Greenhouse, "Washington Week," PBS, 4/20). Additional information about segment is available online. A transcript of the segment will be available online Monday. Video of the segment will available online Friday after 11:00 p.m.
* washingtonpost.com: Washington Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes on Thursday discussed the ruling in an online chat (Barnes, washingtonpost.com, 4/19). A transcript of the chat is available online.
"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
