Copyright 1999 Journal Sentinel Inc.
Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel
September 30, 1999, Thursday Final
SECTION: News Pg. 16
LENGTH:
345 words
HEADLINE: Abortion bans fail
to pass constitutional muster
BYLINE: FOSTER
BODY:
When it threw out three state laws that
sought to ban a controversial abortion procedure, a federal
appeals court in St. Louis last week sent a loud, clear and important message to
Congress: Back off. If Congress, which is considering its own version of such
laws, won't heed that message, it will probably waste a lot of time, money and
energy.
The appeals court struck down laws in Arkansas, Iowa and
Nebraska designed to outlaw a late-term abortion procedure
described by its opponents as "partial birth abortion." In finding the three
statutes unconstitutional, the appeals court judged that they were so broadly
written that they banned other abortion procedures the Supreme Court has
authorized. Similar laws have been enacted in 30 states, including Wisconsin.
The Senate is scheduled to vote next month on legislation of its own, and House
GOP leaders say they will take up a legislative ban early next year.
Any
such move by Congress would likely be futile, since last week's ruling is the
most recent addition to an impressive body of evidence that these sweeping bans
will not pass constitutional muster.
The unanimous verdict of the
three-judge panel in St. Louis was the first appellate court ruling on these
late-term abortions, but federal district courts have either struck down or
delayed enforcement of 20 of the 30 state laws that seek to ban the procedures.
Wisconsin's law was upheld by a federal district court last May, but the case
has been appealed and a ruling is expected in three to six months.
The
broad language of these statutes strongly suggests that their sponsors seek the
abolition not only of late-term abortions, but of all versions of the procedure.
Abortions, especially perhaps those late in pregnancy, involve extremely
personal and often painful decisions that are best left to women, their families
and their doctors. Attempts by government to regulate these decisions are, at
best, intrusive and clumsy. The growing evidence that they are also
unconstitutional is yet another reason to abandon them.
LOAD-DATE: October 1, 1999 
