c. 2007 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 18) upheld a controversial law that bans a procedure that critics call “partial-birth abortion.”

The ruling on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was hailed by abortion opponents as a step toward reducing abortions, and decried by abortion-rights supporters as more political interference in women’s reproductive health decisions.

The 2003 law, which does not include a medical exception for the mother, prohibits the rarely used procedure known as intact dilation and evacuation. Opponents consider the procedure particularly gruesome.

“We conclude that the Act is not void for vagueness, does not impose an undue burden from any overbreadth and is not invalid on its face,” concluded Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority.

Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright said the decision will spur anti-abortion groups like hers to press for other changes, including the regulation of abortion clinics, and parental notification and informed consent laws in each state.

“It bolsters efforts to regulate and restrict abortion,” she said.

The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, said he plans to mobilize religious abortion-rights proponents to counter attempts to further regulate abortion.

“This decision will have a chilling effect upon all abortions and we believe as a religious coalition that women have a right to determine when and whether to have children,” he said.

The procedure considered by the court occurs in the second or third trimester of pregnancy and involves the partial extraction of a fetus through the birth canal; its skull is collapsed by suctioning out the brain.

One of the arguments before the court was whether the procedure is ever medically necessary. Kennedy said the act was not invalid because of the uncertainty of the procedure’s medical necessity, “given the availability of other abortion procedures that are considered safe alternatives.”

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the dissent, called the overall decision “alarming,” and warned its mention of “moral concerns” that led to the law are “concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion.”

The decision marked a change in direction by the court, which in 2000 struck down a similar Nebraska law because it lacked the health exception. Observers noted that President Bush’s recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito played a key role in the upholding of the federal ban.

“This decision is a powerful and timely reminder of the enormous significance of presidential elections and their pivotal impact on the makeup of the Supreme Court,” said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, in a statement.

Some abortion opponents, such as Center for Moral Clarity President Rod Parsley, consider the ruling to be a “small step” because they desire more extensive abortion bans but others, like Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, see it as a significant catalyst for continuing change.

“The time is now right to launch aggressive legal challenges across America to abortion on demand,” Newman said in a statement.

Activists on both sides of the abortion issue predicted the ruling could lead to the undoing of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. Researcher David Masci said the ruling is likely to galvanize both sides, albeit in opposite directions.

“I think both sides are going to see this as a call to action,” said Masci, senior research fellow for the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

KRE/PH END BANKS