Disturbing Supreme Court Ruling

The United State Supreme Court made a huge decision regarding women’s rights on April 18, 2007. Over shadowed by media coverage of the tragedy at Virginia Technical University, the court ruled to uphold a ban on late term abortions.

The type of abortion that has been banned rarely occurs. It is performed in the second trimester and used to ensure the well-being of the pregnant woman. The research behind these facts is up for debate—statistics vary depending on sources.

The most disturbing part of this ruling, there is no exception clause regarding the health of the woman. This means, in the event that the woman’s health is in danger as a result of pregnancy, it is illegal for her to decide to terminate the pregnancy.

The vote was 5-4, in favor of the ban. For the most recently appointed justices, Alito and Roberts, this was the first opportunity they had to exercise their conservative views in the court.

This decision is disturbing; along with the lack of publicity it has received.

The media will over-glorify a killer, but refrain from informing the public about legislation that affects us all. They will plaster the face of a deranged murderer all over televisions, newspapers and magazines, and, I assume, not report on abortion legislature because the subject matter is ‘too touchy’. The media should have more respect for its audience than to desensitize us to violence rather than leave us unknowledgeable about federal court rulings.

And now my dispute with the ruling itself.

This presidency has proved its motives questionable. The presidency has impressed its morals on the federal judicial system with the appointment of justices Alito and Roberts. This ruling is the first round of assaults on women’s rights for two reasons.

First, it is the first decision to exclude a clause for women’s health. If a woman is denied the right to save her own life, in this instance regarding her own pregnancy and its complications, what rights does she have? It is appalling that a woman’s right to choose, not only abortion but her future well-being, has been put on the back burner. This decision puts women further in a second-class rating.

Secondly, this decision may be the first step in reconsidering a woman’s right to a safe abortion, established by the case of Roe vs. Wade. Stating that a specific type of abortion is unconstitutional opens the door for further subjection and interpretation of the term ‘abortion’. Without a clause for women’s health, the priority of the law becomes morality rather than justice. It seems unconstitutional for morality to be forced upon citizens.

This decision is, to say the least, disturbing. The number of people that I encounter that are unaware is also disturbing. I can only hope that the supporters of women’s rights will be heard and more infringement on our rights will end.