Today the Supreme Court decided that a 2003 ban on certain partial-birth abortion procedures does not violate a woman's right to have an abortion. The language used in the law could have dire consequences for second trimester abortions.
Partial-birth abortion, as defined by the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, is a procedure in which a physician:
The definition appears to outlaw two of the most common procedures used in partial-birth abortions: intact dilation and extraction (IDX) -- which involves sucking the brain out -- and regular dilation and evacuation (D&E) -- which appears to be a more systematic process of dismembering the fetus. IDX and D&E are used most frequently after the first trimester ends, at week 13.
The definition is lacking, though. Partial-birth abortions are generally considered to be those that occur after the 20th week of gestation, but the ban provides no such limit. Medical science says the fetal stage begins eight weeks after conception, so abortion opponents may point out that the law could be applied to an abortion occuring in any abortion using the above procedures -- provided that the pregnancy is at least eight weeks old. The way the law reads, it appears they would win.
The ban doesn't appear to outlaw self-induced abortions, which can carry significant risk for the mother. If this law stands, self-induced abortions and miscarriages may become more common.
The 2008 Presidential Candidates have, of course, already weighed in. Republicans support the action, while Democrats object.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is hosting the full decision. (.pdf)
