ThinkProgress is providing excellent coverage. The five Justices who voted to uphold the ban - which did not include exceptions for circumstances in which the life of the mother was at stake - were Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.
Also worth noting:
Justice Clarence Thomas authored, and Justice Antonin Scalia joined, a 137-word concurring opinion, which appears to have the sole purpose of stating: “I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution.”
Hopefully someone out there will help clarify this portion of Justice Kennedy's opinion, as told by the WaPo:
The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
I'd like to know more about this "large fraction" standard for protecting constitutional rights. I'd also like to know more specifically about why Kennedy changed his view since a similar case was decided in 2000.
UPDATE: SCOTUSBlog is your go to site for coverage of today's decisions. I think this section helps clarify Kennedy's apparant reversal on the issue:
Kennedy said the Court was assuming that the federal ban would be unconstitutional "if it subjected women to significant health risks." He added, however, that "safe medical options are available...The Act allows...a commonly used and generally accepted method, so it does not construct a substantial obstacle to the abortion right." His opinion noted that the Bush Administration "has acknowledged that pre-enforcement, as-applied challenges to the Act can be maintained."
The majority said it had not "uncritically" deferred to Congress' factual findings in passing the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 -- including its finding that the banned procedure was never medically necessary. "We do not in the circumstances here place dispositive weight on Congress' findings," Kennedy wrote, adding that the Court also was not accepting the Bush Administration argument that the law could be upheld on the basis of those findings alone. He added: "The Court retains an independent constitutional duty to review factual findings where constitutional rights are at stake."Kennedy insisted -- contrary to the dissenters' angry claim -- that the Court had not abandoned its prior abortion rulings. "The Court's prececedents," he said, "instruct that the Act can survive this facial attack." He said there was "medical disagreement whether the Act's prohibition would ever impose significant health risks on women" -- a prohibition based in significant part on the finding that the procedure was never medically necessary.
But Kennedy said the Act could stand "when medical uncertainty persists...The Court has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty." Quoting from a 1974 ruling (Marshall v. U.S.), the opinion said that "When Congress undertakes to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, legislative options must be especially broad."
On the one hand, it would appear that the case was decided on very narrow grounds. On the other, it is entirely reasonable to assume, as Justice Ginsberg has, that this is in fact the beginning of the end for Roe, particularly if one of the nine should retire before Bush finishes his term.
One thing is for sure: you can add Supreme Court appointments to the list of issues that will face serious scrutiny during the upcoming presidential campaign.
UPDATE II: Publius:
This case was not decided today. It was decided on November 2, 2004. Don't blame the Court, blame the American people. They voted in a Republican President and the entirely-predictable consequence was increasing restrictions on abortions. In fact, Bush is one Justice Stevens illness away from overturning Roe entirely. And for what it's worth, if any of the current Republican candidates win, Roe is over for at least a generation. Maybe you think that's good, maybe you don't. That's not the point. The point is that voting for Republicans has consequences and this is one of them. And these things are worth thinking about when you base your vote on things like John Kerry's windsurfing, or Bush's probably-fun-to-drink-with-ness.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
