Copyright 2000 Plain Dealer Publishing Co.
The
Plain Dealer
June 29, 2000 Thursday, FINAL / ALL
SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. 1A
LENGTH: 873 words
HEADLINE:
PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTION BAN STRUCK DOWN
BYLINE: By JOE FROLIK; NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT
BODY:
A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court
yesterday struck down an effort to ban a controversial abortion technique.
On a 5-4 vote the court said Nebraska's prohibition on so-called
"partial-birth abortions" constituted an "undue burden" on the
constitutional right of women to terminate pregnancies. "This Court, in the
course of a generation, has determined and then redetermined that the
Constitution offers basic protection to the woman's right to choose," Justice
Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority. "We hold that this statute violates the
Constitution."
But Anthony Kennedy, who had coined the "undue burden"
phrase in an earlier decision reaffirming abortion rights, insisted that
yesterday's majority had applied it wrongly. Another dissenter, Justice Antonin
Scalia, predicted the ruling would provoke a "firestorm of criticism as well it
should."
The much-anticipated decision was hailed as a victory for the
rights of women by supporters and blasted as the constitutional protection of
infanticide by opponents. No one predicted an end to the nation's lengthy and
emotional abortion debate.
"We may have won today, but the fight
continues," said Betsey Kaufman, executive director of Planned Parenthood of
Greater Cleveland.
Vice President Al Gore, speaking in Columbus, praised
the ruling and said it would highlight the abortion issue in this fall's
election. His all-but-certain Republican opponent, Texas Gov. George W. Bush,
told reporters in Cleveland that "states should have the right to end this
inhumane practice. I want to come up with a law that meets constitutional
muster."
Since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, the court has insisted
on a health exception that abortion opponents say is so broad it effectively
negates most efforts to restrict abortion. Scholars and advocates on both sides
said it was not immediately clear how the high court's ruling might affect
"partial-birth" bans on the books in 30 other states, including Ohio. There is
also a version of the prohibition pending in Congress; similar laws have been
vetoed twice by President Clinton.
The procedure Nebraska and other
states want to outlaw is formally known as dilation and extraction. In it, a
physician induces labor and guides the fetus feet-first into the birth canal.
Before the head leaves the uterus, it is crushed and suctioned out.
Abortion rights supporters usually say the procedure is performed only
in a few abortions that take place close to the point of viability,
approximately 24 weeks into a pregnancy. Opponents charge they are done more
frequently and much earlier.
A 1995 Ohio law akin to Nebraska's was
overturned by federal courts on grounds of vagueness. Earlier this year, the
Ohio General Assembly passed and Gov. Taft signed a more specific
"partial-birth" ban that is slated to go into effect Aug. 18.
"I think
it (Ohio's law) is still an open question," said State Rep. Jerome F. Luebbers,
the Cincinnati Democrat who was the primary sponsor of the new Ohio ban. "It
could very well be that a year from now, the justices will be ruling on our
bill."
If they do, Luebbers won't like the result, predicted Cincinnati
lawyer Alphonse Gerhardstein.
Gerhardstein, who led the fight against
the earlier Ohio law, said he would file suit next month against the revised
statute and that yesterday's ruling offered new ammunition. "We're very
encouraged," Gerhardstein said.
Yesterday's decision was the court's
first major abortion ruling since 1992. Ruling then in a Pennsylvania case, the
justices reaffirmed a constitutional protection for most abortions, but said
states could impose restrictions that were not an "undue burden" on women.
Breyer yesterday declared that Nebraska had flunked that test. He was
joined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and David Souter. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas joined the
dissent.
The majority ruled that Nebraska's law could be read to ban
another fetal dismemberment procedure that Nebraska officials agreed was legal.
In addition, while Nebraska allowed the "partial-birth" procedure to be used if
necessary to save a woman's life, it did not permit its use if her health was in
danger. Since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, the court has insisted on a
health exception that abortion opponents say is so broad it effectively negates
most efforts to restrict abortion.
Luebbers said he sought to limit
Ohio's new law to the dilation and extraction procedure. The law also contains a
maternal health exception, though Gerhardstein argued it was too narrow. Other
observers said how the courts view Ohio's health exception could be decisive.
Christine Link, executive director of the Ohio Civil Liberties Union,
praised the court for emphasizing the health issue: "That's something we have to
hold on to."
But Link was disappointed by another high court ruling
yesterday. On a 6-3 vote, it upheld a Colorado law requiring abortion protesters
to stay at least eight feet from people entering a health clinic.
"As a
person dedicated to both the First Amendment and reproductive rights, I have a
problem with these so-called free speech bubbles, " said Link. "That decision's
wrong."
GRAPHIC: Map: Updated abortion opinion Source:
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy; Graphic by: Plain Dealer
LOAD-DATE: June 30, 2000 
