The U.S. Supreme Court tackled the constitutionality of state bans on partial-birth abortion April 25. Some 30 states have laws banning the late-term abortion procedure. The Court heard arguments for and against a Nebraska law which bans partial-birth abortion.
Based on past decisions, Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer are expected to be joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens in voting to strike down the law. Chief Justice William Rehnquist is expected to be joined by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in supporting the law. Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor are expected to provide the swing votes in the case, and neither gave any indication of their leanings during oral argument.
Critics of the law say the definition of partial-birth abortion is vague, and could result in prohibitions on other abortion techniques. Nebraska Attorney General Don Stenberg said he has made it clear his office will enforce the law only against the procedure lawmakers mean to outlaw.
“The state’s interest here is drawing a bright line between abortion and infanticide,” Stenberg said. “If a state can’t ban a little-used, particularly barbaric procedure where other alternatives are available, then essentially the state can’t regulate any abortion procedures.”
Simon Heller, an attorney for the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, insisted the law infringed on a woman’s “right to have an abortion by the safest possible means.”
In other Supreme Court news, the Court declined to review a decision banning from school property an advertisement featuring the Ten Commandments. The case from Downey, Calif., involved an outfield fence on a public school’s baseball diamond. The booster club sold ad space on the fence but rejected a paid ad featuring the Ten Commandments. The restriction violated equal-access laws, said Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel, but the question was moot because the school changed its policy to forbid all ads. “Once a forum has been closed to everyone, you can’t ask for special treatment to go where no one else goes,” he said. The case is not expected to have any effect on equal-access rights. (EP)
Share with others: