The U.S. Supreme Court has done it again. 

It has nodded its head, wise or otherwise, to a historical motion — the Partial -Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 — that curbs the killing of tri-semester fetuses.  The “partial birth abortion,” or outlawed medical procedure, is normally used to terminate pregnancies in the second and third trimester.  So far, the ban looks good.  It upholds human life. 

On the other hand, the Act lacks an exception for dire cases where the mother’s health is threatened.  In some cases, a mother needs an abortion to eliminate the risk posed upon her.  The Supreme Court’s decision also sets the stage for additional restrictions on a woman’s right to choose.

The Supreme Court delivered a 5-4 ruling that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Act, which was signed into law in 2003 by President Bush.  The Court maintained that the Act does not infringe upon a woman’s constitutional rights.  The Bush administration also defended the law, stating that it was a clear demarcation “between abortion and infanticide.” 
All President Bush’s appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, joined Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas for the decisive motion.  The four liberals in the Supreme Court -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer -- dissented the ruling. 

However, even as conservatives and abortion opponents rejoice over the long-awaited victory, doctors, particularly gynecologists, are crying themselves hoarse at the unreasonable nationwide ban. 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) president, Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, stated in an amicus brief opposing the ban, “It leaves no doubt that women’s health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.” 

He added, “I can only hope that in the future, science will again be at the core of decision-making that affects the life and well-being of all of us.”

In response to the furor, Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that the “government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman.’’ 

In his 39-page opinion, Justice Kennedy stated, “The government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life […] and the law would reduce the number of late-term abortions.”

Many are also claiming that the decision is more politically correct than medically fit.  However, most opinion poll results show that American citizens stand divided on the issue.  While some agree that the option to abort is either a woman’s prerogative or is based on a doctor’s advice, the gruesomeness of the methodology has also swayed many people’s opinion. 

Nevertheless, while the citizenry stands confused, Congress is oozing with confidence in its decision.  Calling the abortion procedure “abhorrent,” Bush stated, “We made in six years time in protecting human dignity” as well as upholding the “sanctity of life.” 

The silver lining for pro-choice citizens is that doctors could ask a judge for permission to use the procedure for particular medical conditions that pose a risk to the mother.  Violation of the ban will result in two years in prison to the practicing physician.

Abortion advocates challenged the authenticity of the term “partial birth,” pooh-poohing it as a meaningless medical definition.  Doctors call this type of late-term abortion an “intact dilation and evacuation.”  Abortion opponents term it a “partial-birth abortion.”

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice and an anti-abortion activist, declared that the ruling is “a monumental victory for the preservation of human life.” 

On the other hand, Eve Gartner, a lawyer with the Planned Parenthood Federation of American says the “ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their health care decisions for them.”

I think the best part of the recent ruling is that the Supreme Court has banned a specific procedure.  It says no to HOW an abortion is performed, but does not directly prohibit abortions altogether. 

As the debate rages across the country, one can only hope that the elections will deliver a more definitive answer on where our country stands on abortion.