www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall CATHOLIC VOTING MORAL RESPONSIBILITY

.The Court for the most part sustains this position: During the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

[/quote] Here's what one of the two, MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins link [google.com] , said in part:


The Justice White/Rehnquist dissent makes a strong case and is convincing to my Catholic conscience. However, I still feel the SCOTUS decision does not promote or encourage abortion, and I'm unconvinced by your argument that it does. I'm not one to delve into the history of the destruction of unborn human life, but my instinct tells me that the practice is as old as the human race. I do not see a reversal of Roe v Wade as changing the prevailing consensus in many states that abortion services should be made available, and woman who are determined to seek out these services will cross state lines to do so as they did in the past, or find other less appealing ways of finding what they want. As I've said before: Pick your poison.

However, I still feel the SCOTUS decision does not promote or encourage abortion, ...

... but my instinct tells me that the practice is as old as the human race.

...I do not see a reversal of Roe v Wade as changing the prevailing consensus in many states that abortion services should be made available,

...and woman who are determined to seek out these services will cross state lines to do so as they did in the past, or find other less appealing ways of finding what they want.

The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 179, 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand.

Roe v Wade does not grant an ABSOLUTE right to have an abortion, but leaves states the right to restrict only after quickening, unless the mother's life be in danger.

100
1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

77
...a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

The constitutionality of the law was challenged immediately after the signing. Three different U.S. district courts declared the law unconstitutional.[17][18][19] All three cited the law's omission of an exception for the health of the woman (as opposed to the life of the woman), and all three decisions cited precedent set by Roe v. Wade (1973) and Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). The federal government appealed the district court rulings, which were then affirmed by three courts of appeals.[20][21][22] The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Carhart case on February 21, 2006,[23] and agreed to hear the companion Planned Parenthood case on June 19, 2006.[24]

On April 18, 2007 the Supreme Court in a 5–4 decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, held that the statute does not violate the Constitution. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority which included Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissent which was joined by Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens.[25] Kennedy's majority opinion argued that the case differed from Stenberg v. Carhart, a 2000 case in which the Supreme Court struck down a state ban on partial-birth abortion as unconstitutional, in that the Partial Birth Abortion Act defined the banned procedure more clearly. In dissent, Ginsburg argued that the decision departed from established abortion jurisprudence, and that lack of a health exception "jeopardizes women’s health and places doctors in an untenable position". The replacement of O'Connor by Alito was identified as a key difference between the 5–4 decision against the Nebraska law in Stenberg and the 5-4 support for the abortion ban in Gonzales.[26]

Clinical response

In response to this statute, many abortion providers have adopted the practice of inducing fetal demise before beginning late-term abortions. Typically, a solution of potassium chloride or digoxin is injected directly into the fetal heart using ultrasound to guide the needle.[29][30] This is often done by providers who do not perform intact dilation and extraction procedures (as well as by those who do) because they feel the broad wording of the ban compels them "to do all they can to protect themselves and their staff from the possibility of being accused".[31]